Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

National Service (Period)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air his estimate of the financial saving in his Department which would result from reducing the National Service period by six months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The direct saving in pay, allowances, accommodation, etc., resulting from the reduced numbers of National Service men in the Air Force would amount of £8 million. But the total financial effect would depend upon the extent to which the power of the Royal Air Force would have to be reduced to match the available manpower.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that this money could be much better used for improving the pay and conditions of volunteers in the Air Force? Since the Korean Armistice there is no real justification for this long period of conscription. Will not the Under-Secretary consider how this saving could be made for the purpose of attracting more volunteers?

Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing everything we can to attract long-term Regulars. We would much sooner have them. He also knows that the Air Force played very little part in the Korean War.

Shackleton Aircraft (Loss)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what inquiry has been made into the loss of two Shackleton aircraft which were lost from St. Eval on the evening of 11th January; at what time these aircraft took off; what was the estimated time of arrival back at

base; when the last message was received from these aircraft; at what time search and rescue operations began; and if he is satisfied that no avoidable time elapsed before the first aircraft and surface vessels began their searches.

Mr. Ward: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity of expressing the sympathy of the Air Council with the relatives of those who are missing.

Mr. Beswick: If the Under-Secretary cannot give all the details for which I have asked, can he at least give the assurance for which I asked in the last part of my Question?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I have examined this matter very carefully, and I am quite satisfied that search and rescue operations were carried out as quickly as possible, and that no delay occurred before the aircraft and surface vessels began their search.

Following is the answer:

An inquiry into the circumstances of the loss of these aircraft was instituted on 14th January.

The two aircraft took off from St. Eval at 1014 and 1020 hours local time on 11th January, the first aircraft being due to return to base at 0114 hours on 12th January and the second aircraft at 0120 hours. The last messages were received at 2004 hours and 2055 hours respectively on 11th January.

The aircraft were under instruction to return to base should they fail to make contact with base over two consecutive hours. A search and rescue alert would not normally be put into force until one hour after the time the aircraft would be expected at base having failed to establish the required wireless contact. This would have been at approximately 0100 hours and 0200 hours on 12th January. The alert was however declared at 2235 hours on the 11th.

Initially, all possible checks with other aircraft and ground stations were carried out, and at 2315 hours a Shackleton was diverted to the area where the aircraft were thought to be in an attempt to establish contact with them. Full-scale area search and rescue commenced at 0045 hours on 12th January.

No naval vessels were in the presumed vicinity of the aircraft, but H.M.S. " Launceston Castle " proceeded to sea at 0315 hours on 12th January. A broadcast to shipping was made at 0120 hours on 12th January. During the next three days many ships and aircraft were employed in the search, but no trace of the missing aircraft was found.

I am satisfied that search and rescue operations were carried out expeditiously and that no delay occurred before aircraft and surface vessels began their search.

Personnel (Religious Denominations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the percentage of officers and other ranks registered, respectively, as Church of England, other denominations, Roman Catholic, Jews and Agnostics or Rationalist; the approximate percentage attending officially provided religious services; and whether, in the absence of any personally declared conviction, the registration of Church of England is still automatically made.

Mr. Ward: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures giving the answer to the first part of the Question as at 1st January, 1954, the latest date for which the figures required are available. Details of attendance at official religious services are not recorded. The Regulations provide that any declaration of belief or non-belief is to be accepted and registered.

Mr. Sorensen: I wonder if the Under-Secretary could answer more specifically the last part of my Question, in which I asked whether
 in the absence of any personally declared conviction, the registration of Church of England is still automatically made "?
I wish to ask a supplementary question on that.

Mr. Ward: Officially, it never was automatically made. I think that now the position has been made quite clear—that in the absence of any declared religious conviction, a man would be registered as holding no religious belief.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that a very large percentage arc registered as Church of England when in many cases they have no religious convictions whatever?

Following is the table:

Percentages of R.A.F. Strength at 1st January, 1954, according to registered religious denomination

Church of England
68·1


Roman Catholic
10·5


Presbyterian, Methodist, United Board and Salvation Army
19·6


Jews
0·4


Total of all other denominations, including rationalists and agnostics
1·4

Aircraft (Orders)

4 and 5. Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) how many of the Blackburn freighter and the V.1000 transport aircraft, respectively, have been ordered for the Royal Air Force; approximately when they are expected to be available for service; and what other aircraft types, other than the Comet, have been ordered for Transport Command;

(2) how many Comet aircraft have been ordered for the Royal Air Force; of what marks; and when they are expected to be available for service.

Mr. Ward: It would clearly not be in the public interest to give the total number of every type of aircraft ordered. Enough V.1000's have been ordered to get economic production going but it is not at present possible to say when this aircraft will come into service.
Meanwhile, orders have been placed for a number of Comets Mark 2; these aircraft are being strengthened and modified for use by the Royal Air Force and, subject to the satisfactory outcome of special tests, we hope that the first aircraft will be delivered at the beginning of next year. As the House knows, substantial orders have been placed for the Blackburn freighter. Deliveries will begin within the next few months. No other aircraft types have been ordered for Transport Command.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask, first, whether it is possible to give a date, within at least a year, with regard to the V.1000; and, secondly, if the hon. Gentleman's answer means that the idea of using the Princess flying boat has now been completely dropped?

Mr. Ward: On the first point, I would hesitate to give a forecast because it is still so far off, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the V.1000 was ordered off the drawing board in the middle of 1954, and we are hoping that the first prototype will fly in mid-1956. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the development of the Princess flying boat is, of course, a matter for the Minister of Supply. But, as I said in the course of the debate on the Air Estimates, we have been forced to the conclusion that in nuclear warfare there would be few tasks which only a flying boat could perform, and that, from


the point of view of the Royal Air Force, the money would be better spent on the provision of land-based aircraft.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Oil Pollution (International Convention)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what results the international exchange of views on oil pollution has had to date; and what likelihood there is in the near future of an agreement to install separators on all ocean-going cargo vessels.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Twenty countries have signed a convention, subject to ratification. The Oil in Navigable Waters Bill will, if Parliament passes it, enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify it, and power is proposed to be taken to provide for the installation of equipment of this kind in certain British ships. Another international conference will take place in 1957. The question of separators will be further discussed then.

Sir T. Moore: While gratefully acknowledging what the Government are trying to do in this matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is really any hope of success in getting international agreement on the installation of separators, because that really is the issue?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The international convention to which I referred was a great advance on any previous agreement which it had been possible to reach, but we can always hope to carry it further.

Flag Discrimination

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been called to the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, passed by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, calling on Her Majesty's Government to refrain from transactions involving flag discrimination; and what action the Government is taking to discourage practices of this sort which tend to increase shipping costs, and hinder the flow of trade.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is " Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on 23rd March.

Captain Ryder: Has my right hon. Friend impressed upon the other Government Departments the fact that if the Government condone practices of this sort it is bound to encourage other countries to do the same, and will be greatly to the detriment of our own shipping interests as well as being liable to impede the trade of the free world?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to which I sought to invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention indicates the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister at least assure us that no further purchases of American coal will take place upon this sort of flag discrimination basis?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that questions concerning purchases of coal are for me.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the practice of discrimination against the British Mercantile Marine is in operation; and if he will name the countries concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on 23rd March.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our grand Mercantile Marine takes a very poor view of what is happening about this flag discrimination? Can we look to my right hon. Friend really to stand up in a big way for the rights of our Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. I did not hear what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said " Yes, Sir."

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister appreciate that his rather evasive reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)


about purchases of coal will cause concern, unless he amplifies it? Will he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will not in future enter into any bargains of this nature which involve, as part of the purchase price, the bringing in of coal in ships the chartering of which may cost more than the chartering of our own ships?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will appreciate from his own experience that I cannot answer questions which, if they are to be put at all, should properly be put to one of my right hon. Friends and not to me.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend represent this case to other Government Departments? His Department is responsible for the interests of our merchant shipping.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am constantly in touch with my right hon. Friends upon this and other matters.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Government ought to speak with one voice, whether or not they do so, and it really ought not to be a case of the Minister making representations to other Departments? He is in a position to give us an assurance, and unless he will give us an assurance the worst deductions will be drawn from his evasiveness. Does not he agree that the best possible practice in relation to any future purchases of coal or any other commodity would be that those who purchase should be free to charter ships in the best market?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one who knows anything about the processes of administration would regard it as sensible or wise for one Minister to answer questions which should properly be put to another Minister. It may have happened under the previous Government, but it does not happen under this one.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to protect the British Merchant Navy against discrimination by means of exporters of merchandise in foreign countries insisting on the use of their own ships for its transportation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I try to support resistance to flag discrimination wherever it is met, but I am afraid I have no control over the actions of individual shippers.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend once again if he will collect together all the Ministers responsible and make a great protest in support of the British Mercantile Marine and its rights in this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will study the answers which I have given upon several previous occasions in connection with this subject she will see that such a meeting would be wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Holt: The answers of the right hon. Gentleman are really very unsatisfactory. Does not he agree that this is essentially a matter for his Department? Will he at least give an undertaking that he will urge upon his right hon. Friends in the other Departments which deal with the supply of coal that they should not do this kind of thing in future?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will read the reply which I gave him a few days ago, he will see the answer to his question.

s.s. "Stratheden " (Loss of Life)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will institute an inquiry into the loss of life that occurred in the s.s. " Stratheden " during rescue operations on Sunday, 13th March, and report to the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A statutory Inquiry into the cause of death of those who lost their lives has already been held and, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an account of the incident based on the proceedings at the Inquiry.
I am sure the House will join with me in expressing deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives in this tragic accident.

Mr. Moyle: I should like to associate myself with the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to those who have been recently bereaved by this tragic incident, but in view of the widely publicised criticisms which have been levelled against the captain of the " Stratheden " and the amount of correspondence which I have received in connection with this matter, and of which the Minister is aware, does not he think that it is only right, in the interests of


the captain and his crew, as well as the public, that this inquiry should be much bigger than a Departmental inquiry? Does not he agree that it should be a full and public inquiry, in order that those who have been adversely criticised may have the opportunity of stating their case, and the nation can judge the matter when the proceedings are published?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the hon. Member appreciates that the inquiry, which was held under Section 690 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, was held in public and was, in fact, very fully reported in the Press.

Following is the account:

When on passage through the Mediterranean on Sunday, 13th March, the s.s. " Stratheden " received an " S.O.S." message from the Greek trawler " Iason " at 11.20 a.m. Course was altered to the position given and the lifeboats prepared for rescue work. The engines of the four motor boats were run and proved satisfactory.

At 4.12 p.m. " Stratheden " reached " Iason," the position being about 95 miles east of the toe of Italy. The weather was a gale with a heavy sea and swell. Within a few minutes No. 16 (motor) boat was lowered and was on the way towards " Iason." The boat found it impossible to go alongside and the crew of " Iason " were picked up after jumping into the water. On the way back to " Stratheden " No. 16 boat was struck by a large wave, filled up. capsized and sank about 200 yards on " Stratheden's " port quarter. A most difficult rescue operation thus narrowly and most tragically missed successful achievement. Even so, four members of " Iason's " crew were saved.

No. 6 (motor) boat was launched but the engine failed to start. This boat, with its crew, had to be recovered before " Stratheden " could be brought round to windward of the men in the water to allow her starboard boats to be launched in the lee of the ship. As soon as this was done No. 1 (accident) boat and No. 5 (motor) boat were launched. No. 5 boat reached the men in the water about an hour after the accident and picked up seven men. No. 1 boat was unable to rescue any. After searching for an hour in heavy seas and rain the two boats returned to " Stratheden " in the gathering darkness. Eight members of No. 16 lifeboat's crew and 11 men from " Iason " were not recovered. " Stratheden " remained in the vicinity until 9.0 a.m. on the following day, when hope was abandoned and she resumed her voyage.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Haulage

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the evidence that road hauliers are

now combining for the purpose of avoiding rate cutting, thus nullifying the objective of free competition upon which the Transport Act, 1953, was based, he will now take steps to repeal the Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the assumption in the first part of the Question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Duncan Carmichael, who is the Scottish Area Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, said, in a speech to road hauliers at Aberdeen, that they must avoid rate cutting and must combine together for this purpose? Surely, that is against the aims of the Act, which was to ensure that competition existed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the gentlemen in question, like all Scotsmen, made a very good speech, but I do not think that the quotation from his speech amounts to any justification of the implication in the Question.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the presence of several hundred thousand C licence vehicles will always infuse a large degree of competition into the road haulage industry and prevent any of the undesirable practices to which the hon. Gentleman's Question so falsely alludes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think it has something of that effect.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware how glad we are to hear that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is catching up on the argument which we used against the disposal of nationalised lorries two years ago?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is the worst thing I have ever heard said of my hon. Friend.

Motor Lawn Mowers (Driving Licences)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if he will take action to see that the holder of a driving licence to drive anything from a motor-tricycle to a heavy locomotive is not required to pass a further test to convey a small motor lawn mower on the public highway from one garden to another without displaying L plates;

(2) as it is necessary to pass a driving test to take a lawn mower on the public highway without displaying L plates, why there is no guidance in the Highway Code or the pamphlet containing hints for those intending to take the test; and what he proposes to do to make the information available;

(3) what type of test is given to an applicant requiring a C driving licence for a motor lawn mower; how far it is necessary under his regulations to fit a horn, rear reflecting mirror and lights; and, in the case where the applicant's body covers the mower from the rear, where under his regulations it is provided that the rear L plate shall be displayed when the machine is being taken over the public highway to a neighbours garden.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am advised that as the law stands at present, small domestic lawn mowers are probably not " motor vehicles " within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts, even if occasionally used on a road, and that, accordingly, their drivers do not need driving licences. Nevertheless, to avoid any doubt on the point, the Government in another place accepted an Amendment to the Road Traffic Bill which provides that " pedestrian-controlled grass cutters " shall not be treated as " motor vehicles " for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts, with the result that their drivers will not have to undergo driving tests or obtain driving licences and that certain other statutory requirements will not apply. The same Amendment provides that for lighting purposes these lawn mowers shall be treated as hand-propelled vehicles.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this matter in December, 1952, and again in January, 1953? I am sure that the more active members of the nation will feel very pleased, and will be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for having at last taken steps to come to a common-sense decision in the matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's name will be remembered gratefully on every lawn.

Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Amendment which has been inserted in the Bill in

another place covers a tractor towing a wire-bailer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like notice of that question, but I should be inclined to think not.

Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending this Amendment a little further with regard to agricultural instruments used on one farm? Quite often we get a road across one farm. and it is a tremendous inconvenience if one has to go back from one farm gate to another.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That raises a much bigger question, because the implements with which we are dealing in the Amendment are pedestrian-controlled, whereas those which the hon. Gentleman has in mind are generally not so controlled.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now completed his reconsideration, and with what result, of the 20 miles-perhour speed limit for certain heavy goods vehicles, with a view to raising it to 30 miles per hour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no further statement to make on this subject at the present time.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is continuing to reconsider the matter, in view of the fact that only 5 per cent. of the drivers of all the vehicles which are subject to this speed restriction are observing it, and 95 per cent. are violating it? Does not that bring the law very gravely into disrepute?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are a good many other aspects of that matter. As to the present position, I need only refer him to what was said by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place.

Mr. J. Harrison: Does the Minister accept the allegation that 95 per cent. of our lorry drivers are violating the speed limit?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not accept that; that statement was made upon the responsibility of the hon. Member who made it.

Mr. Nabarro: It is still perfectly correct.

Driving Tests

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many persons took driving tests during 1954; what percentage passed on the first occasion; and the total cost to the taxpayer of the subsidy provided on driving tests.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Seven hundred and eighty-two thousand and ninety-one persons took the driving test in 1954. My Department does not keep a special record of the number of candidates who succeed at the first attempt but a sample check taken during the year indicated that 55 per cent. of candidates passed at the first attempt. The cost to the Exchequer in the financial year 1953–54 was £90,000.

Mr. On-Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling among the public that in some areas it is made a principle to " plough " a man or woman when they first take the test, and will his Department look into this matter to see whether a standard which is fair and just is being applied all over the country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the figures which I have given for the country as a whole indicate that there is no such general practice. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, I will, of course, gladly look into it.

Mr. Rankin: Does the test include making sure that the driver knows the difference between red and green?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should think that he probably also knows the difference between red and blue.

Motoring Accidents (Blood Tests)

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that a majority of the public are in favour of the imposition of a blood test for motorists involved in serious accidents; and if he will give consideration to the introduction of legislation to enable such tests to be carried out in the future.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the recent substantial increase in the number of deaths and injuries on the roads, he will now make legislative provision for the imposition of a blood test on all drivers of motor vehicles involved

in accidents causing death or serious injury.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no evidence either to confirm or to reject the assertion made in the first part of the Question by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant). Research is being carried out jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Road Research Laboratory to find out, under laboratory conditions, how precisely measured quantities of alcohol affect driving performance and whether such effect can be satisfactorily assessed. I hope their report will be available this year.

Mr. Viant: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the first part of his reply, whether he is aware that the " News Chronicle " has recently taken a Gallup poll, and it was upon the evidence provided by that poll that I based the Question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I note the source of the hon. Gentleman's information. As I said in my answer, I can neither confirm or reject it, but for practical purposes I think that we ought to await the results of the tests to which I have referred.

Sir F. Medlicott: In view of the fact that the reliability of this test has to a large extent been proved—[HON. MEMBER: " No."]— would it not be a much more satisfactory way of ascertaining the condition of drivers than the present unsatisfactory tests of conduct that have been taking place?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in my earlier reply, I would rather await the conclusions of the Road Research Laboratory tests.

Mr. Stokes: Contrary to what the hon. Member has said, is it not a fact that most of the Members of this House would fail to pass the test if they were tested immediately after lunch, and that it bears no relation whatever to the condition of the driver?

Highway Code (Sale)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many copies of the new Highway Code have now been sold; and how this figure compares with those of previous editions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Approximately 3 million copies. In 1935 and 1947, very few were available for sale, as distribution was almost entirely free. In 1931, 163,000 were sold in the first six months.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that these very satisfactory figures which he has mentioned should have an appreciable effect in reducing road accidents?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must say that I find the very considerable sale which has taken place interesting and reassuring, as indicating general public interest in this most important matter.

Personal Case

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of his inquiries into the evidence sent him by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, on 10th March, that a driver was dismissed for refusing to work illegal hours.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have written to the hon. Member about this case. As indicated, proceedings against the firm in question are pending, in respect of, among other things, record keeping.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Minister's reply was marked " Confidential " it places me at a slight disadvantage. May I ask the Minister if he is proposing to send out special instructions to the enforcement officers to watch this question of the working of illegal hours being required of drivers, as the practice seems to be growing?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have indicated in former replies to the hon. Gentleman on this question, my licensing authorities are keeping close watch, and I very much doubt whether further instructions are required.

Omnibuses (Rural Areas)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what methods of persuasion he is using to prevent the withdrawal of country omnibus services.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) on 16th February.

Mr. Callaghan: As I do not know what that answer was, may I ask the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: " It is in HANSARD."] I know, but I do not carry all the HANSARDS around with me. May I ask the Minister, as his powers of persuasion seem to be in inverse ratio to the withdrawal of country bus services, what practical steps he is taking in order to maintain production in agriculture?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman would read the answer to which I have referred him, he would find illumination and guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will promote propaganda to encourage pedestrians to signal their intention to cross before they proceed across an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While such signals, if given clearly and in good time, are most helpful, I do not think, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, on 8th November last, that it would be wise to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Page: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend and his Department have done in considering this question, may I ask whether he is aware that in a recent poll taken among 179 local authorities, in whose areas about two-thirds of the pedestrian crossings in this country exist, 112 of those local authorities were in favour of propaganda advising the pedestrian to signal before proceeding over an uncontrolled crossing?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not know of that, but I am bound to say that, on the merits of the matter, it appears to me that there might be some danger, if this proposal were carried out, of making it seem that the priority which the pedestrian has on uncontrolled crossings depended on him giving an adequate signal.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister give very serious consideration to the important matter raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, in view of what has happened on these crossings in the last two years?


There have been 80 deaths and about 800 accidents on them. Surely something better than the present system is required on these uncontrolled crossings?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am prepared to consider any proposal which I think would help in dealing with this serious problem, but, for the reasons which I and my hon. Friend have given, I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would contribute to safety.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that many hundreds of pedestrians do not know their rights in regard to these crossings? On the contrary, they stand on the crossings, half way across the road, looking pleadingly and pathetically at the oncoming traffic. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again to see whether this danger of accidents to pedestrians cannot be avoided?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My noble Friend is quite right in his diagnosis of the situation that sometimes arises, but I do not think that the suggestion contained in this Question would help to avoid that state of affairs.

Bridge, Humber

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will indicate the priority of the scheme for building a bridge across the Humber.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not seen any such scheme in definite form. If the responsible highway authorities submitted one to me, I would consider it. I can, of course, give no indication of the priority which I could give to such a scheme as against others which have already been submitted to me.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great feeling that exists in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, and in other parts of northern England, regarding the necessity for this bridge on both local and national grounds? Is he further aware that local authorities are spending large sums of money on definite plans for the bridge, and will he himself consider contributing to it in due course?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I understand that neither of the

local authorities concerned has, in fact, inserted any mention of this bridge in its development plan.

High-Level Bridge, Canvey Island

Mr. Braille: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recent proposals he has received from the Essex County Council concerning the provision of a high-level bridge linking Canvey Island with the mainland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existing ramshackle bridge is causing very great anxiety to my constituents? It is the sole link between the island and the mainland. In view of the fact that his Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicated in this House last December that the Ministry was interested in the county council hurrying on with the plans, can my right hon. Friend expedite progress in the matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The present position regarding a proposal to this effect is that the county council, as the highway authority, is discussing with the Port of London Authority the degree of clearance above water level which would be required if a bridge were constructed. Until that point has been cleared up. I do not imagine that the highway authority will submit a proposal to me.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these discussions have now been going on for a year and that is why I put down the Question, in the hope that my right hon. Friend might be able to inject a little energy into these authorities?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I really cannot deal with the matter until the responsible highway authority is in a position to put forward a specific proposal, and desires to do so.

A13, Basildon

Mr. Braise: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a decision has yet been reached by his Department concerning the alignment or diversion of A13 where it passes through Basildon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No application in respect of this diversion has been made to me by the Essex County Council, the


highway authority concerned. I understand that discussions are taking place between it and the Basildon Development Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that both the highway authority —the Essex County Council—and the development corporation are agreed that this diversion should be proceeded with, on grounds both of economy and good planning? Will he, therefore, look into this matter to see whether some decision can be arrived at at a fairly early date?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that both the bodies concerned would like to see this road built, but there are a good many points which are not yet settled between them.

Improvement Scheme, Lewisham

Sir A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that plans for the redevelopment of the derelict area near the Clock Tower in Lewisham High Street are being held up until he has given his approval to the road improvement scheme therein; and whether he will now announce his decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The London County Council was informed in December, 1952, that the scheme as submitted by it could not be approved as it did not provide a satisfactory solution of the traffic problem at this road junction.

Sir A. Hudson: Can my right hon. Friend do anything to expedite the matter? There is a derelict area near this very important road junction, and I know that the local authority wants to get on with its planning.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know the site to which the hon. Baronet refers, but this is not a question of expediting anything; it is a question of a proposal having been put up in December, 1952, which involved the creation of a shopping centre in the middle of what would have been a roundabout surrounded by 40-ft. roads—which, upon traffic grounds, simply could not be approved.

Hyde Park Corner

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has any further statement to make on proposed alterations to Hyde Park Corner.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that, like my right hon. Friend, I had the advantage, some eight years ago, of seeing a model of the proposed alterations displayed in the Library of the House, may I ask my right hon. Friend when it is proposed that these alterations will be carried out? He will appreciate that the bottleneck which has been created at Hyde Park Corner is a very small one.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already indicated to the House my concern about that place, but, as my hon. Friend may have seen from the Press, certain proposals in respect of this matter are now before the Royal Fine Art Commission.

A2, Strood—Faversham (Accidents)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many accidents occurred on the section of the A2 road, from Strood to Brenley Corner, Faversham, during 1954; and how many persons were fatally injured.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One thousand and ninety-one on the 25 miles of road in question. Four hundred and sixty-three people were injured and six killed.

Mr. Wells: In view of those figures, will the right hon. Gentleman give the Medway by-pass a higher priority than it occupies in his road programme at the present time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I believe the hon. Member is aware, the position in respect of that scheme is that a survey has been made, but I understand that there is some objection, upon agricultural grounds, to the proposed line of the road, and that objection will have to be considered.

Snow Clearance

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to


the fact that the main road over Soutra has been obstructed by snow long after other roads have been cleared; and whether he will consider assisting local authorities in dealing with the problem of snow clearance in particularly difficult stretches of busy main roads.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Conditions on this road were exceptionally severe, and the ice which formed had to be broken by compressors and an ice-breaking machine. My information is that the road was blocked for two days but was then opened to single-line traffic, double-line traffic being restored 11 days later. As this road is a trunk road, I provide the necessary snow-clearing equipment and pay the full cost. On classified roads the responsibility for snow clearing rests on the local highway authority, but all equipment available is used to the best advantage.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of that reply, for which I thank my right hon. Friend, may we take it that in future snow clearance over Soutra Hill will be improved?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows the place well, realises, this hill stands high and faces north, and therefore does sometimes provide very difficult problems indeed, but we are taking steps to see that, in general, rather more apparatus than was available last year will be available in the future.

Accidents (Report)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he can now state when the Report on road accidents for 1953 will be published.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Towards the end of May.

Mr. Keenan: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that it is 15 months since these statistics should have been completed, and that should have given his Department at least 12 months to consider them? It will now be nearly 18 months before we get the Report of 1953, so when are we to get the Report of 1954? Will they both be published next year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that the figures have been given a long time ago. The

publication to which his Question relates involves a detailed analysis of the figures and the causes of the accidents. The figures, of course, have been available for a very long time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (ANGLO-EIREANN AGREEMENT)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of his discussions with the Eire Government to amend the Anglo-Eireann Agreement, which gives a monopoly of air services to Eire, and thus allow British air services to have a service between Wales and Ireland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The discussions are still proceeding. It may be some little time before they are concluded.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister try to expedite these discussions, because the Welsh people are anxious to have a good service between Wales and Ireland, and they have been waiting for a very long time for such a service?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am, of course, aware of the desire of many interests in Wales for these discussions to be brought to a conclusion, but I am faced with the situation arising from the Agreement which was concluded in 1946, and we have to negotiate on that basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Defence Budget (Outturn)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to state by how much the estimated defence budget for 1954–55 will be underspent.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Final figures for 1954–55 will not be available until the Appropriation Accounts are published. It will be some months before any accurate estimate of outturn can be given, but the amounts drawn from the Exchequer by the Defence Departments, which will be included in the Exchequer Returns published on Friday, will give a rough indication.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not possible for the Minister to give some indication now of what the amount of the over-estimating or under-spending has been?

Mr. Macmillan: As I have stated, I would rather wait for the rough estimate until Friday, which will not be very long, when the Exchequer Returns will be available.

Civil Defence Training (Revised Syllabus)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he will make to implement the policy announced in paragraph 106 of the Defence White Paper.

Mr. H. Macmillan: My Service colleagues are having prepared a revised and expanded syllabus of Civil Defence training. This will include individual training in rescue, first-aid and fire-fighting, and collective training in the problems likely to arise in a nuclear war. Where appropriate, collective training will be carried out in conjunction with the local Civil Defence authorities.

National Service Acts (Operation)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will move for the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the working of the National Service Acts.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The conclusions reached by Her Majesty's Government on the present National Service arrangements were set out in paragraphs 67 to 69 of the recent Statement on Defence. Various aspects of these arrangements have also been discussed in recent debates in this House. I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served at the present time by an inquiry of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that, quite recently, the Ministry of Labour has agreed to defer up to 2,000 police cadets, and does not he think that that and other indications go to show that the National Service Acts are now not working in the way in which they were intended to work when they were passed by this House?

Mr. Macmillan: I have noted the first point because I naturally was aware of it.

I should have thought that was not a sufficient reason to justify this suggested wide review of the actual working of the Acts, but I have the point in mind, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Mr. Dugdale: Quite apart from the question of the length of service, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider further whether there is some method by which the number of people called up each year can be reduced, as it is quite plain that the three Services cannot absorb them?

Mr. Macmillan: All these questions are reviewed and considered by the Government from time to time. It is one of their duties to do so. All I was referring to was whether this particular method was likely to be useful.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. Friend consider some of the more limited inquiries into the operation of the National Service Acts that some of us on these benches proposed during the recent debate on defence?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but the Question dealt with a Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY COMPANY, EGYPT (BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say what action has been taken to obtain redress for the British shareholders of the Egyptian Delta Light Railways Limited, the assets of which have been seized by the Egyptian Government and put up to auction.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): The situation has not materially altered since my right hon. Friend's reply was given on 31st January. The law suits filed by the debenture holders are still sub judice.In February, the debenture holders served a new summons on the Government and on the company to prevent the Government from putting the concession to adjudication on the same conditions as those which applied to the company, and which have been shown to be impossible of fulfilment.

Mr. Braine: Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the event of there being no


bidders at this enforced sale the assets of this British-owned company will revert to the Egyptian Government without compensation? If that is so, will very strong representations be made?

Lord John Hope: There is no reason to suppose that there will not be compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the number of years which must elapse before the publication of historical documents concerning events after the beginning of the war in 1939.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): A series of documents covering the inter-war years is now being published. When this work is finished, consideration will be given to the publication of a further series.

Mr. Stokes: No doubt the Foreign Secretary will be aware that I have been pursuing this matter in relation to the true facts about the arrival of Rudolf Hess in this country. Will he tell me why some people are apparently allowed access to all secret documents for the purpose of publishing large volumes on the history of the war, no doubt to the profit of themselves, whereas those of us who want to know the true facts are refused access to perfectly innocent documents which surely we have a right to see?

Sir A. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the publication of historical documents of events after the beginning of the war. I think he would agree that there is a general feeling in the House, after the experience—shall we say?—of the publication of the Yalta documents, that that was not a very good precedent to follow, in the interests of international understanding.

Mr. Stokes: If I put another Question down to the right hon. Gentleman, will he give me a more satisfactory answer than the one I got before on the question of Rudolf Hess?

Sir A. Eden: I will do my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will propose to the countries represented on the Disarmament Sub-Committee the publication of an interim report of the proceedings, including a statement of the proposals tabled so far by each delegation.

Lord John Hope: I have nothing to add to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 28th March.

Mr. Warbey: While strongly deprecating unauthorised, ex partedisclosures—[Laughter.]Why not?—will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing an interim statement which would give public opinion an opportunity to consider the views of the various Governments and express itself upon them, rather than confronting public opinion at the end of a series of meetings with what might prove to be a catastrophic breakdown in negotiations.

Lord John Hope: Any publication on the sort of basis that the hon. Gentleman is asking about is a matter for the Sub-Committee itself. Meanwhile, he has been given a perfectly accurate account by my right hon. Friend. If he does not choose to believe it, I cannot help that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACTERIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what other Governments, as well as Her Majesty's Government, are bound by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which forbids use of bacteriological and chemical weapons; and if he will publish the precise terms of the reservation of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the right to retaliate.

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. As the answer is long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Why could not Her Majesty's Government be similarly bound in regard not merely to bacteriological and chemical weapons but also atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons? Why cannot the Government at least consider that kind of weapon as well

Lord John Hope: The Question on the Paper is about bacteriological and chemical weapons, and I have answered it.

Following is the answer:

LIST OF RATIFICATIONS AND ACCESSIONS TO THE PROTOCOL SIGNED AT GENEVA ON 17TH JUNE, 1925, FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE.

(a) Ratification deposited
Country and Date

British Empire, 9th April, 1930.
Canada, 6th May, 1930.
India, 9th April, 1930.
Austria, 9th May, 1928
Belgium, 4th December, 1928.
Bulgaria, 7th March, 1934.
Chile, 2nd July, 1935.
Czechoslovakia, 16th August. 1938
Denmark, 5th May, 1930.
Egypt, 6th December, 1928.
Finland, 26th June, 1929.
France, 9th May, 1926.
Germany, 25th April, 1929.
Greece, 30th May, 1931.
Italy, 3rd April, 1928.
Luxembourg, 1st September, 1936.
Netherlands, 31st October, 1930.
Norway, 27th July, 1932.
Poland, 4th February, 1929.
Portugal, 1st July, 1930.
Roumania, 23rd August, 1929.
Siam, 6th June, 1931.
Spain, 22nd August, 1929.
Sweden, 25th April, 1930.
Switzerland, 12th July, 1932.
Turkey, 5th October, 1929.
Venezuela, 8th February, 1928.
Yugoslavia, 12th April, 1929.
(b) Accessions

Australia, 23rd January, 1930.
Ceylon, 18th December, 1953.
New Zealand, 23rd January, 1930,
South Africa, 23rd January, 1930.
China, 7th August, 1929.
Ethiopia, 18th September, 1935.
Hungary, 21st October, 1952.
Irish Free State, 29th August, 1930.
Liberia, 2nd April, 1927.
Mexico, 15th March. 1932.
Persia, 4th July, 1929.
Soviet Union, 5th April, 1928.

His Majesty's Government's ratification was subject to the following reservations:
(1st) that His Majesty is bound by the said Protocol only towards those Powers and States which have both signed and ratified the Protocol or have acceded thereto.
(2nd) that His Majesty shall cease to be bound by the Protocol towards any Power at enmity with Him whose armed forces, or the armed forces of whose allies, do not respect the prohibitions forming the subject of this Protocol.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMOSA STRAITS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his proposals for a cessation of hostilities in the Formosan Straits.

Sir Anthony Eden: I made a full statement of the position of Her Majesty's Government to the House on 8th March. Since then there has been an important speech by the Canadian Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Pearson, to the Canadian House of Commons on 24th March. I am making a copy of the relevant portion of the speech available in the Library.
It is clear that the Canadian Government take the same view of the situation as do Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that any further public statement is needed at present to make our own position plain to all concerned.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the very serious statements that are appearing in responsible American newspapers that China proposes to attack the Matsui Islands and Quemoy during April, and that the American Government have decided to defend those islands, will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to urge a cease-fire both upon China and upon Chiang Kai-shek, through the United States Government?

Sir A. Eden: I gave the House, on 8th March, a very clear account, which was generally endorsed by the House, of what we had been doing and were seeking to do. We are still persevering in that endeavour. I do not think I should do very much good by saying anything more publicly.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Appeal Tribunals

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the number of appeal tribunals at present in existence throughout Kenya;

(2) if he is satisfied that those undergoing screening in the Kenya detention camps have full knowledge of the existence of appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): The Regulations provide that every person under a detention order shall be given the earliest opportunity to make written representations to the Governor, and shall be informed of his right of appeal. It is the duty of camp commandants to inform every detainee of this right, and the Advisory Committee itself interviews petitioners in the camps. There should not, therefore, be any risk of detainees being ignorant of their rights.
There is at present one Advisory Committee. The Governor considers that this is adequate to deal with the current flow of appeals against detention; but the system is capable of immediate expansion to meet any increase.

Mr. Turner: My right hon. Friend has given a long and reassuring answer on this subject. Are he and the Secretary of State for the Colonies satisfied that through both the written and the spoken word the existence of these appeal tribunals is made fully known to the people in these camps?

Mr. Hopkinson: I can certainly give that assurance. My right hon. Friend is entirely satisfied that every effort is made in the camps to make the existence of these appeal tribunals known.

Mr. Stokes: Am I right in assuming that, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of advisory committees, he does not mean to include the screening committees, and that these are a separate organisation?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes. This refers entirely to people under detention orders.

Detention Camps (Rehabilitation Officers)

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give figures as to the establishment of rehabilitation officers at present working in the Kenya detention camps; and how far recruitment for this purpose from the United Kingdom is being sought.

Mr. Hopkinson: There are 12 permanent posts, 26 contract posts and a number, at present 22, of temporary posts. In addition, 14 officers are seconded for rehabilitation work. Recruitment for 11 vacancies is proceeding

locally in the first instance, and recruitment from overseas will depend on the results.

Mr. Turner: How far do recruitment difficulties lie in the language difficulty? Are my right hon. Friend's Department and the Home Office prepared to provide language courses for Africans?

Mr. Hopkinson: The value of these officers depends very much upon their knowledge of Swahili and Kikuyu. From that point of view, it is far easier to meet the demand locally than from this country. We have in fact recruited one officer in this country, but I will bear in mind the point which my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. J. Johnson: How many of these officers are African? Is there likely to be any number of Africans for these posts? Are they not more likely to gain the confidence of African detainees than are Europeans?

Mr. Hopkinson: I made that inquiry of my Department this morning, but I could not be given an answer. I will find out, and will write to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that Africans like Mr. Waruhiu and others can do, and are doing, magnificent work in rehabilitation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES (LEPER INSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many leper hospitals there are in the Colonies; where they are; and in what Colonies lepers are refused permission, even when suitably accompanied, to visit towns away from the leper centres.

Mr. Hopkinson: There is an institution for the treatment of leprosy in every Colony in which the disease is endemic, either in leprosy hospitals, out-patient departments of general hospitals, or in separate settlements or villages. Contact with the general public in the case of patients under treatment is related to the risk of infection in each case.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently there have been so many discoveries with regard to leprosy that it is considered by those who are studying this disease that it is no longer


really necessary to have these completely isolated settlements? Will he make sure that the Colonial Office is keeping that in mind?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling). Fortunately, many of the new drugs which have been discovered have made it possible to treat an increasing number of cases as out-patients, to allow patients in institutions to go home for short periods, or to discharge them altogether. We certainly have this aspect of the matter very much in mind.

Dr. Stross: May we take it from that reply that it is now accepted that leprosy is not a dangerously infectious or contagious disease, and that free movement does not necessarily bring danger to the community at large?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. As I said in my original answer, the danger does depend, of course, on the specific case, but in the general way people still retain a very serious dread of this disease. Only education as to the effects of modern drugs and so on will eradicate that fear.

Mr. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend give, in round figures, the number of persons in the Colonial Empire suffering from leprosy, and give, also in round figures, the amount spent on their treatment?

Mr. Hopkinson: I shall need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI (LEPER HOSPITAL)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many lepers are now on the leper station near Fiji; the expenditure on this leper island over the last five years, year by year; and how many of the lepers there are European, Fijian and Indian, respectively.

Mr. Hopkinson: There are 634 patients in the Fiji Leprosy Hospital at Makongai. Expenditure in Fijian pounds was 51,000 in 1949, 55,000 in 1950, 58,000 in 1951, 69,000 in 1952 and 64,000 in 1953. Three of the lepers are Europeans, 139 are Fijians and 193 are Indians.

Mr. Teeling: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the last Question,

would it not now be possible—very good indeed though the arrangements are on the leper island off Fiji—to bring those people back into Fiji and to Suva? The leper island is far away, and the lepers feel that they are completely cut off.

Mr. Hopkinson: I shall certainly bear that suggestion in mind, and refer it to the Governor of Fiji.

Mr. Iremonger: Is it not a fact that islanders from other islands like Fiji and from Colonies outside the British Empire are accommodated in the leper settlement at Makongai?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes. Gilbertese, Samoans, Cook Islanders and others are also treated there. I should like to mention that we have had generous help in the hospital from the New Zealand Leper Trust Board and others.

Mr. Dugdale: As one of the few Members who have been to this settlement, may I add my tribute to any that may be paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the excellent way in which it is run?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

British Guiana (Hand Report)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations have taken place between the Government of British Guiana and the Federation of Unions of Government Employees about the implementation of the Hand Report; and whether he will take steps to see that consultations take place between the two sides and if possible that agreement is reached before any attempt is made to implement the recommendations of the Report.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Federation of Unions of Government Employees has already submitted its comments on the Report and these are being considered by the British Guiana Government. There will be further opportunity for representations by staff associations when the Government's recommendations on the Report are submitted for consideration. by the Legislature.

Mr. Jones: Can the Minister assure us that a real attempt will be made to reach some kind of agreement between the two sides before the recommendations are implemented?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Guiana Government, as also, of course, Her Majesty's Government, are naturally anxious that salary revisions should, if possible, have the agreement of the staff associations concerned.

Antigua (Land Utilisation Survey)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps it is proposed to take to conduct a land utilisation survey on the island of Antigua; and whether he will propose to the authorities concerned on the island that the lands under the control of the syndicate tenancy should be included in such a survey.

Mr. Hopkinson: A grant from C.D. and W. Funds has already been approved to enable a survey to be carried out. The tenancy areas formerly owned by the Antigua Syndicate Estates Ltd., to which I assume the hon. Member refers, have recently been acquired by the Government of Antigua. They will be included in the survey.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (AFRICAN LAND TENURE)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy on the reform of the Thangata system in Nyasaland, the acquisition of land for resettlement by Africans, and the reform of existing systems of African land tenure.

Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on this subject soon after the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Chinese Population

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate number of Chinese in Malaya and Singapore, respectively; what percentage they are in each case of the total native population; and approximately what proportion of them claim dual nationality as Chinese and British-Malayan subjects.

Mr. Hopkinson: In the Federation of Malaya there are about 2,250,000 Chinese, that is, about 38 per cent. of the Asian population. In Singapore there are about 900,000 Chinese, that is, about 76 per cent. of the Asian population. By Chinese law all persons of Chinese race have Chinese nationality. About 53 per cent. of the Chinese in the Federation are citizens of the Federation and about 74 per cent. of the Singapore Chinese are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Reid: In considering the future constitutional position of the Federation, will the Minister realise that if self-government were granted to the Federation, about half the population would already be subjects of Communist China?

Mr. Hopkinson: I should, I think, point out that that is the view of the Chinese Government, and it is not, in general, the Malayan Chinese themselves who claim Chinese citizenship.

Rubber Planting Industries (Joint Consultative Committee)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the negotiations, commenced two years ago, on the setting up of a consultative or negotiating committee for the rubber industry in Malaya have yet been completed; and if he will ensure that this committee will deal on a national scale with the wages and conditions in this industry.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am glad to say that the long and patient negotiations between the two sides of the planting industries in the Federation of Malaya have now resulted in agreement on the constitution of a Joint Consultative Committee for these industries. The agreement, which provides for joint consultation on wages, conditions of work and other matters, was signed on the 26th March.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a long delay in setting up this industrial organisation creates a feeling of frustration among the workmen? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Labour Department in Malaya use its good offices to expedite negotiations when they take place, and will he take steps also to extend the formation of such an organisation to other industries in Malaya?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have just said that the negotiations have been successfully concluded, and I think both sides are to be congratulated on the results. The setting up of the Committee has certainly taken a long time because on neither side of industry was there any effective organisation until quite recently.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, although we are pleased at the setting up of this body, we are dissatisfied at the long delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (UN- AUTHORISED SETTLEMENTS, LUSAKA)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the situation created by the absence of water supplies, drainage, sanitary facilities or precautions against conflagration in the slum settlements around Lusaka; and what action is proposed to improve such conditions or otherwise deal with the problem.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am aware that a considerable number of Africans are living in temporary houses in some 20 unauthorised settlements in and around Lusaka, where conditions are unsatisfactory, although water supplies are generally adequate; I am hoping that the continued efforts of the Government and the Lusaka Municipality in building houses and providing services will lead to the disappearance of these slums.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister really satisfied that the water supplies are adequate? Has he checked what the position is about drainage and on lavatory facilities? I understand that in a number of these settlements all three

items are completely absent. In addition, there appears to be no arrangement to prevent a conflagration. Will the right hon. Gentleman look more closely into this matter to see that more housing accommodation, more suitable water supplies, drainage, and fire precautions are provided?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have described these as slums, and they are slums. Water supplies are adequate, but the sanitary facilities are very bad. The Lusaka municipality is getting on with the job of building houses, but meanwhile I shall see that as far as possible the suggestions of the hon. Member are carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (ELECTIONS)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent elections in Malta and the part played by Government officials therein.

Mr. Hopkinson: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to allegations of interference made against certain senior officials of the Maltese Imperial Government. I understand that these allegations relate to a broadcast made by the Governor on 18th December, and the action of the Lieutenant-Governor on 21st February in bringing to the notice of the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General certain pamphlets which might have been considered likely to endanger public safety if distributed on the eve of the elections.
My right hon. Friend does not consider that there is any justification whatever for construing either of these actions as "interference" in the election.

TURCO-IRAQI PACT (UNITED KINGDOM ACCESSION)

Sir A. Eden: I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement on the Turco-Iraqi Pact.
I have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have decided to accede to the Pact of mutual co-operation between Iraq and Turkey which was signed in Bagdad on 24th February. At the same time, we propose to conclude with the Government of Iraq a special agreement for mutual defence cooperation under Article 1 of the Pact together with supplementary exchanges of Notes. The texts of these documents have been agreed with the Government of Iraq and were initialled in Bagdad this morning. They are being published in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deposit their instrument of accession on 5th April, thus bringing the Agreement and its subsidiary exchanges of Notes into force on that date. Her Majesty's Government will place on the Order Paper a Motion asking the House to agree to this course of action.
As I told the House on 8th March, it has been our aim to forge a new association with Iraq which would bring our relations into line with those which already exist with Turkey and our other partners in N.A.T.O. The Agreement which we have now reached with the Iraqi Government carries out that aim. It is based on the concept of co-operation between equal partners which it has been our purpose to establish generally in our relations with Middle East countries.
The central theme of the new Agreement is that there shall be close and continuous collaboration between the armed forces of the two countries. There will be joint planning and exercises in peacetime so that if ever there were to be an aggression against Iraq we should be in an effective position to give help. We shall advise and give technical assistance in establishing an air defence organisation, including a radar warning and an aircraft reporting system. We shall be

able to stock military stores and equipment in Iraq for use in war. Repair workshops and storage depots will, where necessary, be maintained for the benefit of Iraqi and British forces. There will be British advisers and instructors to assist in the training of the Iraq Army.
We shall also provide personnel to assist in the training of the Royal Iraqi Air Force and to offer continuous consultations regarding methods and techniques of training at all stages. There is provision for mine watching and mine clearance, and we maintain our present facilities for overflying, landing and servicing our aircraft in Iraq.
As part of these arrangements, the airfields in Iraq which are now occupied by the Royal Air Force will pass under Iraqi control, and the British squadrons now stationed there will be progressively withdrawn. But it is agreed that Royal Air Force squadrons shall visit Iraq, in particular, for the purpose of joint training at all times. British Service personnel will remain in Iraq to service British aircraft, to install, operate and maintain facilities and equipment, as well as to assist in the training of the Iraqi air forces. These men will be commanded by British officers acting in close liaison with the Iraqi officer in command of each establishment. They will enjoy the appropriate immunities, and provision is made for the requisite services and accommodaton for them.
The installations at the airfields which are required for our use will remain British property. The remainder will either be sold to the Iraq Government or to other purchasers. Where we maintain an interest, they will be handed over to the Iraq Government under mutually satisfactory terms and conditions.
Thus, we shall be furnished with all the necessary facilities and arrangements to enable us to carry out our part in the defence of Iraq and the Middle East. At the same time, we have established a free and equal partnership which truly reflects the relations we desire with the Iraqi people, and which will, I believe, stand the test of time.
This Agreement marks a new departure in our relations with Iraq. We have moved away from the bilateral arrangements laid down by the 1930 Treaty, which, as the House knows, would in any


event have terminated in 18 months' time and which now comes to an end by agreement. Instead, we have been able to evolve a system which can serve as the foundation of a general defence arrangement in the Middle East. We warmly welcome the part which our Turkish allies have played to make this new arrangement possible. We hope that it will eventually include other countries in the area. I wish to make it clear that in acceding to the Pact we are not associating ourselves with the letters which were exchanged at the time of its signature between the Turkish and Iraqi Governments on the subject of Palestine.
We have not forgotten the levies and civilians who, for many years, have given faithful service to the Royal Air Force in Iraq. We hope that many of the levies will join the Iraqi armed forces and that many of the civilians will be able to continue in employment at the airfields. I can assure the House that we shall care for those who do not, including the Assyrian Christians; and in this respect also we have had the assurance of the co-operation of the Iraqi Government. Proper arrangements will be made for pensions, gratuities, vocational training and resettlement in Iraq in all suitable cases.
The Pact to which we are acceding is fully in accord with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It is a purely defensive arrangement which respects the independence of the countries concerned and their neighbours. It is my hope that these arrangements will lead to increased stability and security throughout the Middle East.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not propose, on behalf of the Opposition, to pronounce upon the merits of this Agreement at this stage, because, obviously, we must study the White Paper which the Foreign Secretary says will be available in the Vote Office. Nevertheless, it is an achievement of considerable importance, within the limits of the policy set down, on which, no doubt, the Foreign Secretary has worked with patience and energy. I gather that a great deal of credit is also due to the Prime Minister of Iraq for the courage and patience which he has exhibited. However, I reserve judgment on the fundamentals of the Agreement and its details until we have an opportunity of studying the White Paper.
In the course of the Foreign Secretary's statement he said:
 It is based on the concept of co-operation between equal partners which it has been our purpose to establish generally in our relations with Middle East countries.
On this point I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are considering entering into any similar arrangements with the State of Israel, which is a Middle East country. They are apprehensive about these Agreements—it is inevitable—between us and Egypt, us and Iraq, and us and Jordan, because Israel is in a state of near-seige and open to the possibility of aggression.
This Pact is bound to cause them some apprehension, whatever its merits may be. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware of these apprehensions and whether the Government will contemplate any similar or appropriate arrangement with the State of Israel.

Sir A. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I am glad that he has mentioned the position of Israel in relation to this Agreement, because it is important. I myself would take the view, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes the view, that when this Agreement is studied it will be seen that from the point of view of Israel it is, as I believe it to be, truly a desirable development—that is, the Turco-Iraqi Pact and now our accession to it—because it is the first time that an Arab State is looking in directions other than simply towards Israel. It seems to me that it is a development of very real importance. This is, as it were, the northern tier of defence arrangements which have been made.
As to whether arrangements could be made covering other Arab countries and Israel, I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be rather difficult for me to go into that now. All I would say is this: the most important objective which we must have in the Middle East, surely, is to bring about a settlement, if by any means we can, between Israel and the Arab States. Unless and until we can do that, although we now have a good northern tier of defence in this arrangement, there will never be the real substance of agreement between the countries who live behind it to give it lasting solidity.

Mr. A. Henderson: May we take it that the Foreign Secretary's reference in his statement to a general defence system does not exclude Israel or any other Middle East country, but is intended to mean what it says—a general defence system? May I ask him a question about the Assyrian Christians? He knows that they have rendered excellent service to the R.A.F. There are about 7,000 of them, they are a community of their own and they represent a very special problem; and, while we are gratified to know that the Government of Iraq intend to cooperate in settling them, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will give very special attention to the special problem relating to the 6,000 or 7,000 Assyrians?

Sir A. Eden: Yes, Sir. I quite agree with everything which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. We have given very special attention to this problem of the Assyrian Christians. We have made arrangements about them which, we are confident, are satisfactory and we have had assurances from the Prime Minister of Iraq himself about it. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's feelings. As to the first matter, I do not think I can very well go beyond what I have said. I do not think it would be wise to do so at present.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement which he has just made is deserving of the warmest welcome from all hon. Members and, indeed, from every country in the Middle East as well? Is he aware that this Pact is about the strongest step which we could have taken to strengthen defence for the free world in the Middle East? In welcoming his remarks about Israel, may I ask him whether he will give particular attention to seeing whether it is possible to use some of the Arab refugees for any works of a defence character which may be involved in Iraq as a result of this Agreement?

Sir A. Eden: The last point would, I think, be a matter for the Iraqi Government. I think the House well knows that the Iraqi Government are, in fact, handing over large sums of their revenue just for this kind of development work.
I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Member for Lewisham,

South (Mr. H. Morrison) said about the statesmanship which Nuri Pasha is showing not only in encouraging this Agreement but even more in caring for his people and making arrangements for their happier and more prosperous lives in their country.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Foreign Secretary do much to allay the not unnatural Israeli apprehension in this matter if he made it clear that he would always use our new position as ally of Iraq under the Pact to moderate the sometimes very aggressive statements of the Iraqi Government about Israel and divert their defensive efforts in other directions, as he said?

Sir A. Eden: I think that a little geographical examination would show the Israeli Government that the purpose of this Pact lies in a different direction. As they are very intelligent people, I should have thought that that would have given them comfort.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the Turco-Iraqi arrangements are mainly directed against the Russians and not against Israel? Would he not go further and repudiate, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, all those aspects of the Pact which are directed against Israel?

Sir A. Eden: No aspects of the Pact can possibly be said to be directed against Israel-none. There was, quite separately, an exchange of letters, and I have been quite specific to the House in saying that we do not associate ourselves with that particular exchange of letters. I think we must keep a fair sense of balance in this matter.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, so great is the debt which we owe to these Christian levies, that, in spite of the assurances of the Iraqi Government, if, by chance, certain of these levies do not wish to settle in Iraq, we must ask whether the Government will consult other Governments of the Commonwealth to see whether they could not be settled elsewhere?

Sir A. Eden: Yes, Sir. We have gone into that and I shall be glad to give the hon. Member fuller details on the subject if he would like them. There are about 2,000 levies-troops-and, speaking from


memory, about 5,000 civilians now; and we hope that a large proportion of civilians will continue to do the work which they are now doing on the camps and that the levies will be absorbed into the Iraqi Army. That applies to those who want to be absorbed. We have undertaken to care for those who do not want to be absorbed and, if necessary, ourselves to produce the finance to make sure that they are looked after. I can give an absolute assurance that we will look after these people.

Mr. Gough: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that this agreement will in no way affect the independence of Kuwait and, in fact., will have the opposite effect of strengthening that small Arab State?

Sir A. Eden: It has nothing at all to do with Kuwait. This discussion is spreading far beyond the boundaries of Iraq. This is a British accession to a Turco-Iraqi Pact and, with respect, I think we ought not to wander all round the Middle East.

Mr. Paget: Is this system of free cooperation between equal partners the same principle as used to be described by hon. Members opposite as the policy of scuttle?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Orders of the Day — EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR (MONUMENT)

Resolution reported,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. 0.M., with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and to the Commonwealth and Empire in Parliament, and in great Offices of State. and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [29th March]

REQUISITIONED HOUSES

Resolution reported,

That where, under any Act of the present Session to repeal the power to requisition land for housing purposes under Defence Regulations and transfer to local authorities in England and Wales the right to possession of requisitioned houses for a limited period, any sums are payable by a local authority to the landlord of a dwelling on account of rent which, by virtue of the said Act, is irrecoverable from the tenant, those sums shall he deemed for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax to be received by the landlord as rent paid by the tenant.

Resolution agreed to.

REQUISITIONED HOUSES AND HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 43; Clause 4. page 5, line 32; and Clause 18, page 13, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Sandys.—[Mr. Sandys.]

3.49 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I beg to move, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 2, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Dalton; the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, lines 19 and 32, and to Clause 18. page 14. line 28, standing in the


name of Mr. Key; the Amendments to Clause 4, page 4, lines 1 and 3, and to Clause 7, page 6, line 44, and page 7, line 12, standing in the name of Mr. MacColl; and the Amendment to Clause 4, page 5, line 38, standing in the name of Mr. Mitchison.
As I understand, this Amendment, if accepted, will facilitate the discussion of Amendments to which, I believe, the Minister will take no exception.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR LIMITED PERIOD.)

Mr. Hugh Dalton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, if in the case of any local authority it appears to the Minister that, in view of the large number of requisitioned houses in respect of which the authority have the right to possession under this section, or because of difficulties in or about the application of section four of this Act or in the negotiation of leases under section eleven of this Act, or because of other exceptional circumstances, it is not reasonably practicable or desirable for that authority to complete the release or acquisition of all such requisitioned houses by the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty, he may direct that in relation to that authority the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for that date there were substituted such later date (not being a date after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty-five) as he may consider appropriate:
Provided that no payment or contribution shall be made to a local authority under section nine, section ten or section eleven of this Act in respect of any matter arising or continuing after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty and that any expenditure incurred after that date by a local authority in exercising their functions (including their powers and duties) under this Act shall not be taken into account in computing the expenditure of the authority for the purposes of section four of the Local Government Act, 1948.
This Amendment again raises the issue which my hon. Friends feel to be the most important in the Bill—the period within which requisitioning is to finish and derequisitioning is to be completed. Both on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and upstairs in Committee we

have argued that the Bill, which contains a five-year period without any qualification or easement at all, is much too rigid.
As has been said previously, it is not as though this Bill applied, in effect, equally to the whole country; in effect, it applies only to certain areas where there are still a large number of requisitioned premises. Most of all, it applies to London, to the London County Council area and the boroughs of Greater London, to the City of Birmingham and one or two other areas of major authorities. Only in those areas has the Bill any real application. On the other hand, in those areas it is felt, particularly by those who represent some of the constituencies concerned, that five years is altogether too short a time to complete the derequisitioning process.
Earlier, we proposed an Amendment which would have extended the period by five years. We are anxious however to feel our way to some agreement. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) took a very active part in the discussion upstairs. We have, therefore, tried to help him and the Minister by adopting, in this Amendment, very nearly the same proposal as in an Amendment which the hon. Member for Dulwich moved in the Standing Committee. In other words, we are not proposing a flat increase over the whole of the country of five years in the period, but we are proposing that for particular local authority areas where difficulties may appear it should be possible for the time to be extended for any period up to five years.
The argument is familiar and I do not propose to dwell upon it in great detail but, in my opinion, if the Minister were to accept the suggestion first made by the hon. Member for Dulwich—the hon. Member now seems preoccupied and is not paying attention. I should be glad to have his ear, because in the Standing Committee he played a very active part in proposing substantially what is in this Amendment. He said, very properly, that in his constituency it would be most unpopular if it were attempted to bring all requisitioning to an end within a flat period of five years. We would not like to incommode the hon. Member in any way and, therefore, we have tried, in this Amendment, to help him and to help the Minister to find an intermediate way between the crude five-


year period of the Bill and the equally crude—although as we think, better—plan for the extension to ten years over the whole country.
The hon. Member for Dulwich will agree, following the suggestion he made upstairs, that we have put forward a carefully considered Amendment which would leave the Minister full discretion in regard to particular local authority areas. Where it was found in any particular area, such as Camberwell, which the hon. Member for Dulwich now partly represents, that that was not the best proposition, the Minister could retain a discretion up to five more years. I trust that the hon. Member for Dulwich will give his support to this Amendment.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I wish to support this Amendment. While not repeating the things which were said upstairs, nevertheless I would emphasise the fact—because it is a fact—that this Clause is completely impossible to work in London if the period is only up to 1960. If the Minister does not see his way clear to accept this Amendment, or to agree to a similar Amendment, as the local government Press has been saying, he will find himself in very great difficulty.
About 50,000 of the total number of houses in London are still under requisition. London has an enormous waiting list of people who badly need houses. London County Council itself has an urgent waiting list of nearly 50,000 families. All the boroughs also have urgent waiting lists. They have sorted out applications into urgent and non-urgent cases and have decided only to house those who, for all sorts of reasons, are on the urgent lists. If all the families in requisitioned houses were transferred to the new accommodation which will be built in London in the next five years, there would not be enough accommodation to house them.
Secondly, and most seriously and shamefully, all those at present on the waiting list would have to wait several years more before their turn came. I am quite sure that neither the Minister nor anyone on the Government side of the Committee wishes to see that if it can be avoided. But, if this Clause is left as it is, that will be the inevitable result of trying to force the borough

councils of London to complete de-requisitioning by 1960. This is a borough council matter, not a county council matter, in London. Powers ought to be taken to deal with the position under this Bill.
I wish to quote what the " Municipal Review " said only last week in an article dealing with this Bill—that it
…seems likely to test severely the administrative capacity of many housing authorities, mainly in the Greater London area.
The article went on to say:
 If, as seems likely, some of them, with the best will in the world are unable to do so. what will happen to the families living in the houses not then dealt with? 
That is exactly the point which some of us have been flogging for several weeks. Unless the Minister takes power to extend beyond 1960 retention of houses under requisition, councils will find themselves at the end of that period with very large numbers of families for whom they cannot find houses. Those families will then become illegal tenants and have to be turned out, unless other accommodation can be found for them. It is inconceivable that they would be turned out. I do not think anyone would suggest that they ought to be turned out, but most of them are in requisitioned houses and, if that accommodation were their normal accommodation, they would not be regarded as urgent cases.

4.0 p.m.

In so far as those people are rehoused, all the urgent cases—those in which there are health reasons or bad overcrowding, or where people live in houses which have been condemned as unfit—will be pushed back, not a few weeks, but several years. It is important, therefore, to take provision to retain the power to hold requisitioned houses for some years beyond 1960.

That same article in the " Municipal Review," after calling attention to the difficulties which the 1960 date in the Bill would create, said:
 Would it not be as well for the Minister to seek power, in the present Bill, to extend the time limit for individual local authorities if good cause is shown?

That is exactly the point on which we have been hammering away at the Minister for two months and which, in Standing Committee, I thought he had agreed to meet.

When we were discussing the similar Amendment in Committee, together with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), I certainly was given the impression that the Minister would consider what could be done to try to meet this admitted practical difficulty for every one of the local housing authorities, not only in London, but in Birmingham, Liverpool and one or two other places which have a large number of requisitioned houses. But nothing has been done and the Minister has not tabled any Amendments today to meet this difficulty. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree to accept the Amendment.

All of us on this side, and probably the whole Committee, would agree that it is much better for the housing authorities to own outright the houses which they manage rather than to manage them under requisitioning powers. We want to get rid of the requisitioning of houses, but, in doing so, we must not create severe hardship for the many thousands of families who, at any rate in London, are still compelled to live in them. In view of the opinion of all parties in London and the opinions of the experts who write in the municipal Press about this matter, the suggestion of postponing the date until 1965 is one which the Minister ought to accept, particularly as we do not propose to continue any additional charge on the Treasury.

Unfortunately, owing to the tightly drawn way in which the Money Resolution has been worded, it is impossible, under the Bill, to continue the Treasury payments, and for the years after 1960 the total net loss on each house would have to be borne by the borough or town council concerned. As far as I am aware, no objection has been expressed to that if we could get some provision of the kind we suggest which would ease the derequisitioning of houses.

I detest this Bill. It is an entirely wrong way of trying to deal with the problem. In the main, it is an effort to try to help property owners—as we were told in Standing Committee—and even investment companies. The people of whom we ought to be thinking most are the families who live in these requisitioned houses, all of whom have been put into them by local housing authorities because

of housing difficulties or because they were bombed out or for some other reason. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment, and make it possible not only for the Clause to work but to ease the difficulties with which the housing authorities will be faced.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Through unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to serve on the Standing Committee. Nevertheless I hope that the Minister will think again about this matter. As I have said in the House before, we in Birmingham are not in such a serious position in the matter of requisitioned houses as the Greater London area, but we still have 2,200 families in requisitioned properties.
Birmingham has nearly 60,000 people on its register, 50,000 of whom are living in rooms. I suppose that we have the greatest slum clearance programme of any town or city. We have to set aside a number of houses in the city in the slum clearance and redevelopment areas for houses which become derelict and unfit for human habitation. This takes away a number of houses from the ordinary applicants. We also have, as in other areas, a number of tuberculosis and other sick cases which take preference over the ordinary applicant. Therefore, a number of houses each year are allocated to certain cases apart from ordinary applicants.
There is not the slightest doubt that the tenant in the kind of house which is requisitioned is not the type of tenant who would be prepared to purchase the house. The owners of these houses are not the type of owners who are prepared to accept the present licensees as tenants of their houses. They are out to sell them and to get the biggest bargain. As I have said before, I could take the Minister or any hon. Member of the House along roads in Birmingham where houses which have been derequisitioned for over nine months, under the voluntary agreement with the previous Minister, are still standing idle even though thousands of people are living in rooms.
This is hampering Birmingham, and it means that, apart from the provision for sick cases and the slum clearance and demolition areas, we have to find accommodation for those who are already


in the requisitioned houses. The people who have left requisitioned houses which were derequisitioned voluntarily have gone into municipal houses, thereby taking away houses from those who have been waiting a long time in the queue, while those derequisitioned houses are standing idle awaiting the highest bidder.
I urge the Minister to realise that the great housing problem in our towns and cities is no easy matter. Every Member of Parliament and councillor in our cities is visited by people who are constantly begging for something to be done, because they have been on the register for four, five or six years, but the Minister is going to leave them on the register much longer and thereby cause more dissatisfaction.
No one wants requisitioning for requisitioning's sake. In fact, Birmingham would like the chance to take over these houses by compulsory purchase. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will understand our argument and will allow a further extension, which would ease the whole of the housing problem. In that way, he would cause much less dissatisfaction among the ordinary applicants for housing.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) stated the truth when he said that I was in support of the general principle underlying the Amendment. I should like to read to the Committee the Amendment which I put down in Standing Committee and which, quite properly, was ruled out of order. It will indicate to hon. Members exactly what I have in mind about this whole question.
My Amendment in Standing Committee proposed the following insertion in page 2, at the end of line 2:
 Provided that if in the case of any local authority it appears to the Minister that, in view of the large number of requisitioned houses in respect of which the authority have the right to possession under this section, or of other exceptional circumstances it is not reasonably practicable for that authority to complete the release or acquisition of all such houses by that date, he may direct that as respects that authority this subsection shall have effect as if for the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixty there were substituted such later date as he considers appropriate.
The reason why I tabled that Amendment was that there are many local authorities, particularly in London and, as has been mentioned today already, cities

and towns like Birmingham, Liverpool, and even Southend-on-Sea, which have far more requisitioned property than the local authorities of some other places, as set out in the document issued by the Ministry, such as Dagenham, with only 127 families affected, and Esher, with 142. The problem for the vast majority of local authorities is very much smaller than that of the local authorities in London and the Greater London area and the like. The latter are the local authorities of areas that were the most severely bombed. The local authorities whose problem is comparatively as great are those of the areas which were reception areas, the authorities which had to receive large numbers of families sent to them.
It was because of these facts that I put down in Standing Committee my Amendment, which was out of order because of the very narrow way in which the Money Resolution had been drawn. I should like now to put to my right hon. Friend how important it is that leeway should be given to local authorities in the London area. The London and Greater London areas, as I said on Second Reading and repeated in Standing Committee, are the areas which suffered most from bombing and, in consequence, have the greatest number of requisitioned properties. I must say to my right hon. Friend that it will be impossible for local authorities in the London and Greater London areas to carry out the provisions of the Bill unless an extension of time in which to do so is given to them.
Naturally, I do not wish to embarrass my right hon. Friend, but he did indicate in Committee that he was sympathetic to this point of view. I hope that today he will be able to give the local authorities in the London and Greater London areas and the reception areas, which suffer from requisitioning to a very much larger degree than most of the housing authorities, some hope of being able to carry out the provisions of the Bill, with which I personally entirely agree.
I do not want to detain the Committee with all the arguments which have been put forward already, on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. I would simply say to my right hon. Friend that, if he wishes the Bill to work smoothly and easily in areas such as Birmingham and London, it would be advisable for him to accept an Amendment of this kind. I


know that my right hon. Friend has had conversations about the Bill on many occasions with those local authorities, and I am sure that such an Amendment would enable the Bill to be operated more smoothly. I am sure derequisitioning will take place as my right hon. Friend desires, but I think he must give way to some extent on the time factor.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daises: I agree with about three parts of what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) has said and I agree with the whole of what my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said. My borough council has asked me to support the principle of the Amendment. After the 1945 Election it was quite common for hon. Members to have a cock-eyed sort of competition as to who was representing the most bombed area. I do not want to join in such a competition. We have got over that stage. However, in common with the London boroughs about the docks, the borough I have the honour to represent certainly had its fair share of bombing. The hon. Member for Dulwich is quite right in stating that after that extensive bombing there was a great amount of requisitioning.
The case I want to put to the Minister is, I admit, a constituency case, or a borough case. I think he should give to my people some indication of what they should do to carry out the principles of the Bill if he sticks to the time-limit of 1960. My borough cannot solve this housing problem within the present time-limit. As long as the docks remain prosperous, as long as the heavy industries around my constituency remain prosperous, then, as fast as we move our people out, either in a dribble to a new town, or through the outbuilding scheme we have in operation, as fast do they and will they move in again. If the Minister sticks to his present time-limit he will present us with a serious problem in 1960, and I think he should " come clean " and tell us what we are to do.
What are we to do in 1960? Is he suggesting—it seems that messages are passing to and fro between the Front Benches. I should like to have the Minister's attention when this paper chase is over. Are we, in 1960, to deal with the people in requisitioned houses by put-

ting them at the front of our housing queue? Are we to give them preference over people whose need of houses is, perhaps, far greater than theirs? Or are we to have half-way houses for sorting out the queue? The Minister should tell my borough council precisely what he thinks it is to do about the problem.
I appeal to the Minister. Can he vary the rule? The problem varies in different areas. I do not question that the Bill can be applied in some areas where the number of requisitioned properties is small, but in a borough like mine, where our housing problem is constant, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to apply the Bill. There seems to be no solution to the problem at all. Perhaps we could vary the time-limit, as prescribed in the Bill, between one district and another. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter from a practical standpoint. In boroughs like mine something has to be done to help us. I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: I want to support the Amendment, and base my argument upon our experiences in Birmingham. Every local authority having requisitioned houses is watching the progress of the Bill, and of this Clause in particular, most anxiously. The Minister will, I am sure, readily admit that the concern does not arise from any fractious opposition. It arises from knowledge of the present housing difficulties of the local authorities. They are difficulties which are not likely to be swept away at any early date. The local authorities are doing their best in extremely difficult circumstances.
In Birmingham, for example, there are at present 50,000 families without a house. In addition, new applicants are coming on to the list at the rate of 200 families every week. Yet that is not the whole problem. We have in Birmingham such special cases as add to the housing problems that every local housing authority has to meet. About 600 families are evicted every year in Birmingham as a result of county court decisions. In addition, we have special cases which the medical officer of health said must be rehoused immediately, for example, T.B. cases.
Then there are those houses which, by reason of the medical officer's representations, must be demolished almost imme-


diately and for the tenants of which new housing accommodation must be found. There are also slum clearance cases and, on top of all, there is the appalling fact that, despite the admitted gross overcrowding in Birmingham, we cannot take any action to abate it for the simple reason that we have not the housing accommodation to utilise on behalf of these overcrowded people.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the effective application rate in the City of Birmingham is more than twice as high as is the rate at which houses are becoming available. It means that, unless this Clause is amended, by 1960 our housing position in Birmingham, despite every effort by the Corporation, will probably be worse than it is today—and we are now building up to the full extent of the labour and sites available. On top of that, under the provisions of the Bill we shall have the special addition arising from the derequisitioning of houses. We have 2,000 families living in requisitioned houses in Birmingham.
How can we deal with the proposals in the Bill? We cannot do it except at the expense of the people who are already on the housing register. Some of them have been on the register for eight, ten and, in some cases, twelve years. Is it fair that these people should be required to give up their positions on the housing list to meet the claims which inevitably will arise under the Bill? If we make them do that, we shall be departing from what everyone accepts as the proper basis for housing allocation, which is the need for the allocation. That is why I suggest that local authorities are expressing very great concern about the Clause.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he was concerned about hardship. So are we on this side of the Committee. We do not want either owners or tenants to be in a state of undue hardship, but there should be a proper balance of the hardship. It seems to us that more concern is felt about the hardship to those who own the requisitioned property than about the hardship to all those who will be displaced. Even if he accepts the Amendment, the Minister will have the power to make the effective date 31st March, 1960. He can do that in respect of any authority in whose area the problem is comparatively small. Conditions in the areas of local authorities differ a

great deal. In London the problem is immense, and ours in Birmingham is quite large.
It seems to us unfair that there should be a blanket proposal under which precisely the same conditions are to apply in varying circumstances throughout the country. If the Minister accepts the Amendment he will have discretion. He can say in respect of one authority that the date shall be 31st March, 1960, and in respect of another authority twelve months or two years or anything up to five years later. In addition, every local authority will have to prove its case. It will be considered by the Minister and he, in his discretion, can say whether the case is proved or not.
Surely, that is fair. It takes into consideration not merely the demands of owners of properties but also the proper requests of local authorities acting on behalf of the tenants and the citizens generally within their areas. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the Amendment favourably and that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Victor Collins: When we discussed the Bill in Committee there was a good deal of common ground between us. One thing that became perfectly clear was that the problem of derequisitioning is not acute in more that 50 of the 1,500 local authority areas. The Minister himself said that he recognised that and, indeed, that if it were not the case we would need to have only a one Clause Bill. I should have thought that those remarks of his were unanswerably in favour of the Amendment. Indeed, in Committee the words which the right hon. Gentleman used about the Bill when he was dealing with an Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), which was not moved, were, in fact, accepting in advance the kind of Amendment which we are now moving.
The Minister even said that he would assist his hon. Friend to find a form of words which would be in order, in accordance with the Financial Resolution, to meet this point. We have endeavoured to assist the Minister in finding a form of words, and we have used many of the words which the hon. Member for Dulwich used in his abortive Amendment. It is very difficult, therefore, to


imagine that the Minister will not now accept this Amendment.
In rejecting our proposal that the period should be ten years instead of five, the right hon. Gentleman said that in some of the London boroughs the problem would not be solved in ten years. He said that if it was to be solved in the ordinary way through the waiting list it might well be fifteen years before local authorities in London, which were badly placed in this respect, could hope to move people out of requisitioned properties without giving them any special priority in respect of allocation of accommodation. The Minister admitted that, unless we are to add to the length of our waiting lists in the London boroughs, it might well be fifteen years before we could successfully deal with the problem. It therefore seems unanswerable that there must be some discretion after 1960 so that the period can be prolonged in special circumstances.
During our discussions in Committee upstairs we, on this side of the Committee, referred to the fact that this was a human problem of which the Minister did not seem sufficiently aware. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had many requisitioned houses in his own constituency and he had visited requisitioned houses in all parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman assured me—and I represent the boroughs of Shore-ditch and Finsbury—that he knew all about conditions in Finsbury because for some months he had lived in Finsbury Park—which is some miles distant from Finsbury. Sadler's Wells is in my constituency, but one would hardly expect to acquire an expert knowledge of vodka by visiting the Russian ballet at Sadler's Wells. I suggest, therefore, that the opinion of the people of Finsbury is better conveyed by Finsbury Borough Council.
A few days ago, the Council passed a unanimous resolution in the course of which it said:
…it is mindful of the serious position of all London authorities if the Bill becomes law in its present form in view of the acute housing problem in the Metropolis and the added responsibility of rehousing persons displaced from slum clearance areas, and urges Her Majesty's Government to amend the Bill (1) to extend the time specified for relinquishing requisitioned properties from five to 10 years from the date of the passing of the Act.…

4.30 p.m.

The figures speak for themselves. In my constituency there are about 1,800 families, out of a total of 26,000 families, living in requisitioned property. That means 70 families per 1,000. I understand that the working party which considered this problem made progressive suggestions on figures as low as five per 1,000. Here we are dealing with a problem where there are 70 families per 1,000 of the population living in requisitioned property. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends from London could quote even larger percentages, but, anyway, those I have quoted are large enough.

When the Minister pins his hopes on the ability of local authorities to obtain leases from landlords—and he is pinning his main hopes on that, I am sure—we feel that the owners will only be interested in selling at a profit. We believe that if the Bill is left as it is now with this rigid date of 1960 and no longer, then he is creating considerable difficulties for local authorities. He is gambling on the grant of leases and he is laying up trouble for the future.

In the London boroughs we are suffering from the physical difficulty of space. Every new housing scheme means a net loss of dwelling accommodation. The more successful we are the worse the problem becomes. In proportion to their population, the boroughs I represent have the best housing records in London, but as they proceed with construction their problem becomes worse. We have not got the space. We cannot expand, as my hon. Friend suggested, into the estates outside the area to relieve this pressure, and unless the Minister changes his mind about these requisitioned properties he will add acutely to the difficulties of local authorities who are struggling against problems which are almost overwhelming, and he will add to the sufferings of the people who already have too much to bear.

Mr. Albert Evans: The Minister owes an explanation to the Committee, especially to those hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee. I am amazed that, so far, the right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to intervene in this debate to explain what the position is. I know that I shall be repeating words that have already been


used during the last half-hour, but I think it is essential that the Minister should " come clean " with hon. Members on this particular matter.
I will put on record again what he said in Standing Committee, because I take exception to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in that Committee and the complete silence he is now adopting. He has made no attempt to intervene upon a point which, I should have thought, was a point of honour with him. He gave an assurance to the Members of the Standing Committee and he now sits silent, making no attempt to get up and clarify the situation.
The Minister said in Standing Committee, in so many words, that he would consider this matter again. He said:
 If. therefore, hon. Members opposite would be willing not to press their request for a general five-year extension, and not to oppose the Motion 
he would certainly look into it and find a form of words that would meet our requirements.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What happened next?

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will contain himself just for a moment, I may be able to find what the Minister said next. At a later point in the debate he said:
 There seems to me to be quite a fairish body of agreement 
—and to be fair to him he added these words:
 I have not yet accepted that this is necessary—and a feeling on both sides of the Committee that possibly something more might be needed on these lines 
—that is, extend the period beyond 1960.
Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) said that the Minister had his complete confidence and that he had made a promise. He also said this:
 If the Minister gives an undertaking that on the Report stage he will do something, I think it is a little unfair to the Minister himself for Members opposite not to accept his undertaking.
Apparently the Minister deceived the hon. Member for Dulwich. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking as a genuine one, and so did the rest of us.
But the Minister has not seen fit to honour the undertaking he gave to put something on the Order Paper. I know he did make the condition that he would bring in a new form of words to meet our point if we did not press the matter to a Division. Is he attempting to withdraw from his undertaking on that technicality? Is the position he is adopting that because we pressed the matter to a Division he is absolved from doing what he told us he would do? Is the Minister trying to get out of an undertaking upon such a flimsy point'?
Before the vote was taken in the Standing Committee, the Minister said:
I tell the Committee frankly that I am not in a position to say exactly what the time limits should be and what is the best way to bring the financial position into order."[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A,8th March, 1955; c. 54–68.]
Even at that late stage he confessed that he was not sure what the exact time should be. I hope that the Minister will not now tell us that he will put this matter right in another place, because if he gave, as I think he did, an undertaking to hon. Members it seems to me he should honour that undertaking in this House and not in another place.
Of course, it may be that the Minister, after all, intends to meet our point in another place, and give us what we want, but there is another point involved, and it is that if the Minister led the Standing Committee to think that he had changed his mind and had accepted the arguments and was prepared to bring in a form of words to amend this Bill, then it is incumbent upon him to come to this Committee and put the matter right.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) had convinced the Minister in Committee that the claim submitted and backed by the local authorities' associations for an extension of time, where necessary, was a sound one. It appeared to me that the Minister indicated to the Committee that he was convinced, though he said he was afraid that, if an extension of time were given to 1965, the pressure which he thought this Measure would exert upon local authorities would be lessened. His objection, if I understood it aright, was that 1965 would leave local authorities with no inclination to get rid of the requisitioned property.
The Minister also gave clearly to the Committee his view that local authorities in some cases were not allocating sufficient of their new properties to take people out of requisitioned premises.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): When did I say that?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman said, at column 44:
 Because I recognise the problem which confronts local authorities, particularly in the Greater London area, I have been very careful in any remarks I have made not to put any additional pressure upon them to allocate more council houses than they are doing at the moment.

Mr. Sandys: That is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago.

Mr. Butler: The statement is there:
 I have been very careful in any remarks I have made not to put any additional pressure upon them….
I should have thought that was quite clear, and while the cause of the hilarity may be obscure to me, hon. Gentlemen opposite may be such keen humorists that they can appreciate some points which to me are not humorous.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If my hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt, is not what he has in mind at column 41, where the right hon. Gentleman said:
 I have not the same feeling of confidence that if we extend this period for five years, all local authorities will try to wind up this problem with the same intensity as they would, if the period were as stated in the Bill."?
The Minister wanted to squeeze them a bit.

Mr. Sandys: The point which the hon. Gentleman made was that I wished to bring pressure on the local authorities to allocate an additional number of houses for the purpose of accommodating people who are now living in requisitioned houses, which they would have to release as a result of the Bill. I claim that there is nothing in anything I have said throughout the proceedings on this Bill—

Mr. Butler: That is what the Bill does.

Mr. Sandys: —including the quotation read by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which bears out that suggestion.

Mr. Butler: The Bill itself does that. Whatever the Minister thinks I am entitled to think he meant by it when he said it, is beside the point. I am not concerned with what interpretation the Minister requires me to put upon his statement; I am concerned with the statement speaking for itself, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who consider this to be a " Crazy Gang " show—

Mr. John Hay: My right hon. Friend was quite definite about it when he said, in the middle of column 44:
 Therefore, I have not attempted to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to increase these allocations, although I hope and expect that they will continue to provide at least as many council houses for this purpose as they have done in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A,3rd March, 1955; c. 41–44.)
That denies completely what the hon. Gentleman has said.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I was assiduous in my attendance at the Committee. There is no necessity to read out the whole of its proceedings, neither is there any need for me, with my elementary school education, to attempt to teach the hon. Gentleman the meaning of words. I let them speak for themselves and the Minister is entitled to make his case.
I was proceeding to state what, in my view, was the conception of the Minister, namely, (a)that he did not trust the local authorities to carry out the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament and (b)that he said that in his view local authorities should allocate part of their permanent accommodation to the relief of this problem. I say that it is unfair to people in my own borough in particular, where we have 6,000 people on the waiting list for housing accommodation. In many cases those people have been living in exceedingly bad circumstances, and, as has been emphasised time and again, those in requisitioned property are the members of our community who suffered most during the war. It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying that there are people living in requisitioned property who have motor cars, as we often read in the Press. Much of that property is of inferior quality. They are not living there because they want to do so; they are forced to live there because there is nowhere else for them to live.
The suggestions made in the Bill have been considered by the local authorities, including those who were in support of the pink document referred to in the course of the Bill. After reading the Bill, they have seen the iniquities contained in it, and from their experience and from their consideration of the Clauses of the Bill, and the proposals it involves, they know that in their areas—the areas which have been badly hit—it is impossible inside five years to solve the problem of the release of requisitioned property, whether by purchase, by acquisition of the lease, or by making statutory tenants of the existing licensees.
We know it is a fact. The Minister's lack of geographical knowledge of London is equalled only by his lack of knowledge of local government activities. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know that Finsbury Park was not in Finsbury, how could he know the problem of the local authorities? The Minister is asking us to do an impossible job. There are 3,300 families packed into these places and the Minister says, " Get rid of them in five years." That is approximately 700 a year. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech on this Amendment—

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman has done nothing else so far.

Mr. Butler: Then maybe I can amend it to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman; anyway, I will try.
Anyone connected with a Metropolitan borough placed in the position of my own, would realise that it is impossible. We cannot build more than 200 or 300 houses per annum. We have not got the room, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. We have not got the facilities. The policy of the Government, of allowing the building industry to have a " free for all," will mean that it will be even more difficult to get builders to build municipal houses.
Therefore, the problem is being aggravated, and I say that the Minister gave a clear undertaking to his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich. Throughout the stages of the Bill we have looked at all the Amendment Papers and we have found nothing from the Minister to indicate that he has any intention of doing the things which he indicated to the Committee. The question was asked what happened after the Minister gave this

undertaking or promise. A Division was called—

Mr. Hay: A technicality.

Mr. Butler: Does that mean, according to the hon. Gentleman, that if the Minister has promised to do something in the interests of the community and the country—

Mr. Hay: On a condition.

Mr. Butler: —and if, then, he attaches a condition that I have to play marbles with him, like Lady Docker, the country, which should have something beneficial as a result, is to be denied it because of that obligation? Is that the hon. Gentleman's conception of Government responsibility? Surely, the over-riding factor in all these matters must be whether it is desirable and in the interests of the people, and not whether Charlie Brown gave Jack Jones an undertaking to bet two to one on Chelsea winning yesterday. That is not the proposition. A promise was given by the Minister to this House that the local authorities which suffered badly were entitled to receive serious consideration.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider the matter again. I can assure him that the local authorities are anxious to do the best they can for their people. We are anxious to do the best we can for our people, and we will attempt to operate this Bill, but we are entitled to expect that the Government and the Minister will have some regard for the difficulties under which our people are living.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I do not think it is so very important that the Minister, during the proceedings of the Standing Committee, said that he was not going to bring extra pressure to bear on local authorities to allocate normal housing to people coming from requisitioned properties, because, whatever his words were, the fact is that this Bill must inevitably do just that. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get people out of requisitioned properties, and those people have to go somewhere. I am sure that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would not expect them to be left with nowhere to go, and, therefore, I do not see that this undertaking has any great importance, because unless we are successful in dividing the


House against the Third Reading of the Bill, the hardship which we have envisaged is bound to occur.
I make no apology for asking the Minister to look at our Amendment again against the broader background of the whole housing position in London. The right hon. Gentleman must know—I am sure he does—that the London County Council alone, leaving out the Metropolitan boroughs, has a waiting list of 165,000, and it is increasing each year by 30,000. Of the people on that waiting list, 50,000 are in the classification of A priority of urgency. These are the figures which we have in mind when we come to the Minister and ask him, not unreasonably, to give us a little longer than the five years arbitrarily set down in the Bill in which to deal with this enormous problem.
In London, the next five years will be a period of especial difficulty. Recently, the Minister has given his agreement to the main provisions of the County of London Development Plan, though with certain modifications which were not always helpful, but to which it would be out of order to refer. I should like to remind the Minister that, in the plan which he has now agreed, the slum clearance will lay on us the necessity of finding new homes for over 18,000 families in London. For schools alone—and I am speaking only of the next five years—we are having to displace 4,330 families, and the Minister has agreed that we should do this. For open spaces, and the Minister has said that our provisions for open spaces were a little limited, 3,300 families will have to be found new homes. For road improvements, public buildings and other miscellaneous reasons, nearly 10,000 families will have to be displaced in the next five years. A few days ago, in the House, the Minister asked local authorities to give a little more kindly consideration to the plight of the discharged ex-Service man who applies for housing accommodation, and that is another obligation which we are now having to meet more fully.
I should like the Committee to know, because I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated, that of the children now in the care of the L.C.C., over 1,100 are in that position purely by reason of housing conditions; that is to say, 1,100 children

are being brought up in institutions and in foster homes, not because of broken marriages, not because they are delinquents, but purely on grounds of housing standards, An attempt is to be made to allocate a certain proportion of lettings to these cases in order that the families may be brought together again. I am sure that that is an object with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would agree. The L.C.C. is also allocating 5 per cent. of the lettings to homeless families in institutions. All these commitments are adding up to a sum of enormous and forbidding proportions.
To meet these commitments alone, over 50,000 houses will be required before 1960, and I am leaving out of account the emergencies and the dangerous structures, which amount to 100 a year in London. There is also an attempt being made, which I am glad to see the Minister is encouraging, for the modernisation and improvement of the older tenement blocks. Every time a local council effects improvements, it loses on the average about 25 per cent. of the accommodation, because when bathrooms are put into what were previously living rooms, and an effort made to get a little elbow room, the number of rooms is thereby reduced. Every time the council tries to improve the standard, it thereby reduces the number of homes in any particular block.
While all these great problems are before us, at the same time there are the plans for the new towns and the expanded towns which have still a long way to go. In asking for further time, I think we are justified because, after the passage of a further period, we should be able to look a little more hopefully towards the expanded towns than we can now, because certainly progress there has been very slow. As if all these problems and commitments were not enough, the Minister, by fixiing this arbitrary period of 1960, is making a requirement that by that time 55,000 families must be somewhere else, or, if they are still where they are, then, by the kindness and consent of the landlords, we must make other arrangements for them. It is still a mystery to most of us on this side of the Committee why the Minister expects the landlords to meet him halfway over this, but that is another question.
In this Amendment, we are more than justified in asking for a little leeway, and I very much hope that, after what has been said in the Committee today, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is only fair to the people of London—and I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) —that he should try to help the local authorities in these areas by giving this extra elbow room. It is little enough that we are asking, and it will be most unreasonable if it is not given to us.
In calling attention to these commitments, I have not referred in any way to the gravity of the housing list situation, and it is the people on the waiting lists who will inevitably suffer if the Minister forces through this programme at this speed, because it will have to be carried out at a tempo which is beyond the resources of the local authorities. To be at the top of the housing list in a central London borough imelies that a family has been living in conditions of indescribable misery. As the Committee knows, every local authority has its points scheme, by means of which it tries, by a process of arithmetic, to reduce the needs of the families to mathematical formulae, and those who live close to this problem know that the arithmetic has broken down, and that we are dealing with a problem of human misery which defies computation. In the light of our knowledge, and of the special difficulties in the next five years, I hope the Minister will feel able to meet us on this very reasonable and very fair Amendment.

5.0 p.m

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise now, if he had not already done so, that we are today dealing with certain areas where the housing problem can be said to be the most acute. Because the housing problem there is the most acute by comparison with other parts of the country, and in some cases it appears to be almost insoluble, we find ourselves face to face with difficulties arising from the provisions of the Bill.
What is the right hon. Gentleman asking local authorities to do in the period of five years? Many of the local authorities have no land whatever upon which to develop housing schemes and already have slum clearance problems and development areas with which to

deal. The right hon. Gentleman is asking them to make arrangements within five years for the disposal of 90,000 families.
The Minister proposes in the Bill that the 90,000 families shall be disposed of in this way. First, where a requisitioned dwelling falls vacant for any reason, it should cease to be requisitioned and be no longer available for other families. The second provision is for the owner to go to the courts. The owner may be successful in getting an order for possession, and by that means the requisitioned house will be released, and something will have to be done for the licensee because he will then be displaced. The third provision is for the owner to appeal to the Minister on grounds of hardship, and the Minister may decide that the requisitioned house shall cease to be requisitioned, and then some arrangement will have to be made for the licensee to be accommodated elsewhere. Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman is proposing that, where necessary and where possible, local authorities shall take out leases on dwellings in any case where an owner declines to take over the existing licensee as a statutory tenant. Only in the last resort will the Minister permit a local authority compulsorily to acquire a requisitioned dwelling.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to press all that into a period of five years. I think he must have conic to the conclusion now that it is physically impossible to achieve that in many areas. There may be some smaller areas where there will not be much of a problem left by 31st March, 1960, but I am sure he will find that in the great majority of areas the problem will by no means have been solved by that time.
As it stands, the Bill means that any requisitioned house not otherwise disposed of by 31st March, 1960, will then cease to be requisitioned. Licensees still in them will then be trespassers, and they will have to go because in law they have no right to be there. The owner who goes to court for an order for possession will get his order because the licensees will be trespassers and will have no right to be there.
This predicament was put to the right hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee, but, with all respect to him, he evaded the seriousness of the issue. He


believes he will solve the problem within five years. If he does so, then there will, of course, be no problem on 1st April, 1960. However, the fact remains that there will be a problem at that time, and the local authorities and the occupants of the requisitioned dwellings will want to know precisely what their position will be on 1st April, 1960. Will they be trespassers liable to be made homeless? What exactly is to happen to them? The right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to make provision for any residue still not dealt with by 31st March, 1960. If he does not, he will cause a tremendous amount of anguish and anxiety to many people who have already suffered very badly during the war. He is in honour and duty bound to make some provision for them so that they may have security of tenure after 31st March, 1960.
The Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman a certain amount of flexibility. It is true that we include a deadline date five years later, 31st March, 1965. I believe that to be the weakness of our proposition, because I do not believe that even by that time the whole problem will have been cleared up. At any rate, it gives the right hon. Gentleman an intervening period of five years in which he can decide—power is given to him to do so—whether the problem is so serious in an area that he ought to extend the period by one, two, three or five years in accordance with its intensity. I should have thought that was a very reasonable proposition to make. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do anything about an extension, it will create a tremendous amount of confusion and a good deal of unnecessary suffering on the part of a large number of people who do not deserve such treatment.
There is a case for an extension even beyond our suggested date of 31st March, 1965, because the right hon. Gentleman proposes, where all other means fail, to permit local authorities to take out upon existing requisitioned properties leases for a period up to a maximum of 10 years. If local authorities do that, what will happen when the leases expire? Surely the licensees will be trespassers in precisely the same way as they will be on 1st April, 1960. That is an additional reason for an extension beyond the date mentioned in the Amendment. The

acquisition of leases, presumably by agreement—there is no power of compulsion—in respect of a wide range of requisitioned properties is no solution at all. It is merely a deferment of the problem.
The Amendment is a reasonable one. It is far better than the proposal to extend the period from 31st March, 1960, by one year or two years. If we put any hard-and-fast date other than 1965 in the Bill we shall not find the whole problem resolved by such time. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. He cannot expect a final solution by 31st March, 1960, as I am sure he knows by now. He would be doing the right thing by the local authorities and by the occupants of requisitioned dwellings, as well as by the people on the housing list whose need is far more urgent than that of the great majority of requisitioned families, if he accepted the principle of my Amendment. It would give him a flexible period of five years after the terminal date, which he could use as he thought fit and proper to deal with the problem in areas where it has been found impossible to provide a solution within the five-year period now in the Bill.

Mr. Sandys: I apologise to the Committee if I did not intervene as soon as some hon. Members would have liked, but I wanted to listen to the speeches in support of the Amendment before making my comments upon it. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has spoken once again with his usual fluency. I am only sorry that there are not the same Press facilities to record his words.
The hon. Member, and others who have taken part in this debate—the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Dames) and others—all reverted to the argument, which they must realise by now is fallacious—but perhaps it is the only one which is politically interesting—that the Bill result in prejudicing the prospects of people who are on the housing lists.

Mr. Shurmer: It is bound to do so.

Mr. Sandys: I have listened to the arguments that have been presented, so perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to listen to mine. I have given my


reply to this point on the Second Reading, and on more than one occasion during the Committee, and I will try to repeat it. It is sometimes necessary to repeat one's replies to an argument when the argument has been repeated.
It is alleged that the Amendment would be helpful to local authorities. It is a strangely-worded Amendment, and I think it would do local authorities very much more harm than good. Leaving that point aside for the moment, let me deal precisely with the suggestion that the operation of the Bill will prejudice the prospects of people on the waiting lists for houses.
If hon. Members have copies of the Bill with them, they will see that the Clauses concerned with the release of houses are grouped together and are Clauses 3 to 8. We are not concerned very much with Clause 8 because it deals only with the prevention of release of parts of requisitioned houses. We are really concerned with Clauses 3 to 7. I will run quickly through them in order to remind hon. Members what they provide.
Clause 3 provides for the release of dwellings falling vacant. The release of a dwelling which has become vacant cannot prejudice the prospects of somebody on the housing list, because if it is vacant it will not make it more difficult for that person to get a council house. I think everybody agrees that we are not keeping requisitioned houses for all time as part of the general housing pool. When a house becomes vacant and is then released, the prospects of somebody on the local authority housing list getting a council house are not thereby prejudiced.

Mr. A. Evans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the release of even one requisitioned dwelling reduces the pool of houses for the local authority by that one?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I thought it was generally accepted, not at the beginning but in the course of the Committee debate, that we did not regard requisitioned houses as a part of the permanent housing pool of local authorities. If that be so, the argument that I am putting is perfectly sound and valid. I am coming in a moment to the later Clauses in which I think hon. Members opposite are more interested, but I had thought there would be no

disagreement on this first point. Release of a vacant requisitioned house cannot prejudice the prospects of people on the housing list of obtaining a council house.

Mr. Shurmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the tenants of requisitioned properties find themselves accommodation instead of the local authority doing so?

Mr. Sandys: I think hon. Members accept my point.

Mr. Shurmer: How often do they do it?

Mr. Sandys: I am talking of houses that become vacant. If the tenants do not find themselves other accommodation, the houses do not become vacant.
Clause 4 deals with the acceptance of the licensee as statutory tenant by the owner. Clearly that provision will not prejudice the prospects of anybody on the housing list, for the simple reason that the licensee will remain living in the same house. Clause 5 deals with application to the court for release for the owner's occupation. This is about the only Clause where one might, by some stretch of argument, maintain that the Clause could result in the local authority having to house in a new council house somebody who had been displaced as the result of a decision of the court.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I was hoping to make a speech on a point, but if we can get it clear now we shall probably save time. The case where the owner of the property takes over requisitioned premises will obviously make some sort of drain on the housing list. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that, quite apart from the owner of the property having obtained an order to have his property returned to him, the right hon. Gentleman's own Department is, at the present time, stopping local authorities carrying out what they call " extensive " repairs to requisitioned properties? The result is that local authorities are being forced, in addition to their other commitments, to do something about people living in houses where extensive repairs should be carried out.
In Stepney we are not able, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, to carry out extensive repairs, and we have either to leave the tenants as licensees in requisitioned houses in bad property which needs repair, or else they have to take


precedence over people on the housing list.

Mr. Sandys: The remarks of the hon. Member will be more relevant to Clause 7, which deals with that point. I was speaking of the possibility that it might become necessary under Clause 5 for a local authority to provide accommodation for a family which had been required by the court to leave its house. In all the speeches that were made on Second Reading, particularly from the party opposite, it was made clear that cases where the owner acquired the house for his own occupation were not at all numerous. Therefore, the size of the problem is not very considerable.
None the less, in Committee upstairs we discussed the problem in some detail, and I gave an undertaking to accept Amendments which should, I think, completely remove the possibility that this difficulty will arise. There are two Amendments in particular. First, I would draw attention to the fact that the court can decide to displace the licensee only if it is satisfied that his hardship is less great than the hardship which is caused to the owner by the latter being prevented from getting his house back. That is a very considerable safeguard. Even supposing it did result in what some hon. Members have suggested, at any rate the effect is to relieve greater hardship at the expense of some other hardship.

Mr. Julius Silverman: On a point of order. All this has nothing to do with the Amendment. As far as I understand the position, the Amendment will not affect the operation of Clause 5 one way or another. Surely this is entirely out of order.

The Chairman: I thought that it was all right.

Mr. Sandys: This is probably the main discussion at this stage. All the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment were, in the main, to the effect that, unless the Bill is amended in the way suggested, people would be thrown out of their houses and, as a result, would have to be accommodated by the local authorities at the expense of other people on the waiting lists. I was attempting to deal with that argument. I think that arguments advanced on those

lines in support of the Amendment were relevant. Therefore, I assume that my reply also is relevant. I am trying to help hon. Members opposite.
My point is that, quite apart from the question of hardship, which is relevant to this issue in references to the courts. there are two Amendments on the Paper which hon. Members know that I propose to advise the Committee to accept. One, which is in my own name, is designed to enable the Minister to require local authorities—they will very likely do it themselves without any requiring—to establish a pool of vacant requisitioned houses: in other words, not to release houses when they become vacant, but to retain a pool so as to have vacant premises available to accommodate families who may be displaced as a result of a decision of the courts under Clause 5.
In addition, in response to a suggestion made in an Amendment by an hon. Member opposite, which is now on the Paper in a revised form, I propose to accept the suggestion that it should be a direction to the court that, in considering the question of hardship, it shall not assume that in the allocation of council houses the licensee will be given preference by the local authority over other persons whose need is greater than his. I think that that last provision absolutely knocks the bottom out of any suggestion that the Bill will prejudice the prospects of people on the waiting lists.

Mr. H. Butler: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that if people are evicted the local authorities automatically house them? Because of the social responsibility they have eviction lists. People evicted through no fault of their own must be put somewhere. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman says does not solve the problem.

Mr. Sandys: The point is that, in all probability, in 99 cases out of 100 the owner will already have a roof over his head before he goes to court. Therefore, if in fact the licensee is likely to be left high and dry on the street, I have little doubt that, in assessing the relative hardship, the court would come to the conclusion that his hardship was greater than that of the owner.
By accepting that Amendment, I am ensuring that the courts shall not assume


that the licensee will be made to jump the queue and be given preference over other people on the housing list.

Mr. Gibson: The suggestion for the building up of a pool of requisitioned house accommodation sounds feasible, but surely that will cease in 1960, because the Bill says that a local authority
…may retain possession of the house until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, and no longer.
Will not the pool then disappear?

Mr. Sandys: I think that it will disappear long before then.

Mr. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman is too optimistic.

Mr. Sandys: The pool is at the discretion of the Minister. I think that the need for it will disappear long before 1960. It is desired to insure against a considerable number of applications to the courts immediately after the passage of the Bill. The majority of cases, so far as they exist, exist already. They have been building up over the last 15 years. There is a certain bank of them. No doubt they will go to the courts, but they will work themselves off in the process of the courts, I imagine, in the next six months or so. After that, I do not conceive that it is likely that many new cases of serious hardship among owners wishing to regain possession of their houses for their own occupation are likely to arise, for the simple reason that any owner who has acquired his house after the Queen's Speech does not come within the terms of the Clause.
It is not very likely that many owners who do not now wish to regain possession of their houses for their own occupation will be able to make out a case of hardship in a year or two's time. That is why the main problem under Clause 5 is likely to arise in the months immediately following the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 5 was the only one which should affect the housing situation generally—

Mr. Sandys: I am coming to Clause 6.

Mr. Mitchison: Clause 6 is an iniquitous piece of bureaucratic oppression. It will have an iniquitous effect if it is put into operation.

Mr. Sandys: When I come to Clause 6 I will point out that it is quite irrelevant to the argument. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I gave an undertaking in Committee upstairs that I would accept an Amendment which would have the effect of giving a local authority the option of deciding whether to release a house or to purchase it. If it decides to purchase it, clearly the licensee will remain in that house. Obviously it cannot then be argued that, as a result of the local authority purchasing the house, anybody on the housing list will have his prospects prejudiced.
There again, under Clause 6, clearly nobody on the housing list can have his prospects prejudiced.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect us to agree with that.

Mr. Sandys: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he has in mind?

Mr. Mitchison: What I have in mind is that Clause 6 provides in effect that the Minister can have a licensee turned out in order to meet the severe financial hardship of the landlord. It is true that there is an alternative of buying the house but, one way or the other, the only object of the Clause is apparently to meet the severe financial hardship of the landlord. What with the landlord and the local authority, I refuse to accept the proposition that that will not affect the position of the licensee and the housing position in the borough concerned.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I cannot see how the hon. and learned Gentleman can argue in that fashion—he has such a clear mind. I cannot believe he has convinced himself, for the simple reason that we have assumed—and the party opposite made the point again and again—that all local authorities are wise and humane and indulgent towards the licensee.
I am not disputing that point. It is part of the common basis on which we have been discussing this matter. But if that be so, it is quite clear that, when given the option of either buying or releasing a house, if it would result in the licensee needing alternative accommodation, or having to be put in a house ahead of someone else on the housing list, presumably the local authority would decide to buy the house.

Mr. Shurmer: Compulsory purchase?

Mr. Sandys: No. It would have to make an offer to the owner to buy the house. If the hon. Member will read the Bill, he will find that it is all there.

Mr. Shurmer: Would the right hon, Gentleman give way? I am sorry to interrupt again—

Mr. Sandys: We have discussed this at such length that I do not think I need to explain the Bill to the hon. Member. If he will read it—

Mr. Shurmer: If the Minister knew some of the landlords in Birmingham and the prices they are asking he would realise the position.

Mr. Sandys: What they have to ask is clearly defined; there is no doubt about that. It will be on the same basis as fot compulsory purchase. The offer that the local authority will be required to make will be on the same basis as if it were for compulsory purchase. It is up to the owner not to accept the offer if he does not wish to do so. In each case, if the local authority decide not to release the house, the licensee remains where he is.

Mr. Shurmer: After 1960?

Mr. Sandys: We are talking about between now and 1960.

Mr. Shurmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry I cannot—

Mr. Shurmer: This is a serious matter for the Birmingham local authority.

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, I cannot give way again. I have dealt fully, perhaps more than fully, with the point—which I felt was the crux of the argument, and that is why I have gone into so much detail about it—that this would result in prejudicing people on the housing lists.
Now I turn to the precise wording of the Amendment. Were I to accept this Amendment, which I do not feel able to do, I do not believe that a single local authority would avail itself of the facilities which the Amendment provides. I do not believe that one single local authority would do so.

Mr. Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way just this once? He

has made the statement that he does not think one local authority would avail itself of the facilities provided by the Amendment in order to extend the time. Will he deny that the Birmingham City Council has already written to him asking him to extend the period because of the difficulties in which it will be involved in finding accommodation for people already in requisitioned houses?

Mr. Sandys: I gave way because I thought that the hon. Member would be helpful to me. I do not suppose that Birmingham had anything to do with the drafting of this Amendment.

Mr. Shurmer: The City of Birmingham wrote to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sandys: Were I to accept this Amendment in its present form, or anything like its present form, I do not believe that a single local authority would feel able to avail itself of the facilities which the Amendment provides. It would not be necessary to do so.
The Financial Resolution is very much wider than hon. Members opposite appear to have noticed. One effect of this Amendment would be that all local authorities would have to bear 100 per cent. of any current costs in respect of requisitioned houses at the end of 1960. That is no great hardship, because they are getting this extension. I quite understand that. In addition, local authorities would have to pay the whole of any terminal compensation, that is to say, compensation for dilapidations at the end of the period, for any of those houses, which at present is paid for 100 per cent. by the Exchequer. There are considerable sums of money involved.
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have observed that, in addition, local authorities would not only not be entitled to receive any grants in respect of leases or purchases after 1960 but, were this Amendment accepted, they would lose the compensation for leases and purchases which had already begun to operate before 1960.
One must assume that a local authority applying for an extension has a considerable number of requisitioned houses in its area and has probably already negotiated a substantial number of leases and purchases before 1960, and that there is a certain balance left to deal with. But,


were this Amendment accepted, the 20-year grant on leases, which may have started only one or two years before 1960, would come to an end completely. Any grant towards the capital purchase sum for houses bought before 1960 would also come to an end.
In addition, the one let-out provided by the Bill, the discretionary grant which enables the Minister to make good anything which otherwise would not be permitted under the Financial Resolution, is deliberately excluded by the Amendment. Local authorities would get nothing after 1960, and they would lose benefits that they were beginning to obtain before then. I do not believe local authorities would jump at this proposal.

Mr. Mitchison: Unlike the city of Birmingham, I have seen this Amendment before, and I have no quarrel at all about the description of its effects given by the right hon. Gentleman. But he should remember the position of the Opposition in matters of this sort.
This is an exceedingly complicated Money Resolution. Its meaning has puzzled people much better versed in Money Resolutions than I am. It even puzzled the right hon. Gentleman, because during the meetings of the Committee he did not know what he could do under this Money Resolution. An Amendment from his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) which otherwise he would have accepted—as we understood it—could not even be considered, because it was out of order.
As an Opposition, we regard it as our function to put up things for consideration, to make sure that they are in order for consideration, and to leave the Government—who have introduced a restrictive and complicated Money Resolution—to put right the money side of it, as only they can do.

Mr. Sandys: Then do I understand that hon. Members opposite do not really want their Amendment?

Mr. Mitchison: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we would much rather the proviso was out. But were the proviso not there, the Amendment would be out of order and could not be discussed.

Mr. Sandys: Hon. Members have it so firmly in their heads that this is such a

very tight Money Resolution that they have not availed themselves of its possibilities, which are more considerable than they seem to imagine.

Mr. C. W. Key: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me? l have not interrupted before. If that be so, and since he said in Committee that he felt a case had been made out for the extension of the time, will the Minister now say that he is prepared—leaving out all these provisos and everything else—to extend the time?

Mr. Sandys: I thought that before referring to that I should address myself to the Amendment which has been moved. The right hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders, but I think it was only courteous for me to address myself to the proposition put to the Committee by the party opposite, instead of brushing it aside and taking for granted that it was not satisfactory.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—as did others—complained that we have a very rigid date and that the Bill provided no easement in difficult cases. During the Committee stage the Opposition originally asked for a general all-round extension of five years, but, in the course of the debate which took place upstairs, I think it was evident that what everyone who supported that Amendment had in mind was that there might be typical cases where an extension would be desirable.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like West Ham.

Mr. Sandys: I am not dealing specifically with the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South (Mr. H. Butler) said that he thought, from what I had said during the Committee stage, that I was convinced of the necessity for this extension in particular cases. But I could not have made my position clearer than I then did, and I will read again to the Committee what I said. It was:
 I wish to make clear that my opinion, which remains unchanged, is that no extension of any kind is necessary. It should be perfectly possible, without undue strain upon the staffs of local authorities, to complete the necessary procedure for leases and purchases within the five-year period laid down in the Bill—and probably long before that.


Hon. Members opposite may think it nonsense, but all that I was making clear was that I had not said that I was convinced by the arguments of hon. Members opposite. It may be unfortunate, but that is what I said. I went on to say:
 Nevertheless, I always like if possible "—
I will leave out a few irrelevant words
to proceed in these matters by agreement. If, therefore, hon. Members opposite would be willing not to press their request for a general five-year extension, and not to oppose the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I, for my part, for the sake of agreement "—
I would draw the attention of the Committee to that—
 would be prepared to consider introducing…at Report stage an Amendment on the lines of the Amendment on the Order Paper "—
and I went on to say—
 with the inclusion…of some reasonable time-limit to the period for which the Minister would be empowered to extend requisitioning in the area concerned.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman also read the words referring to the Financial Resolution?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman can himself read them out if he thinks they are relevant.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The words are:
 redrafted in such a way as to bring it into order and not to conflict with the Financial Resolution….'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A,8th March, 1955; c. 54.]
The right hon. Gentleman required time to consider how, and to what extent, he could do it.

Mr. Sandys: The Amendment was not in order. I did not say that I required time, but only that the Amendment required alteration if it was to be brought within the rules of order. I said that if the party opposite could accept that solution of the problem, and did not oppose the Clause, I would put down an Amendment on Report. The party opposite did not, in fact, accept that proposal and persisted in their opposition to the Clause.

5.45 p.m.

I am prepared once again to make an offer, not because I think it is necessary, but solely for the sake of agreement and good will. If hon. Members opposite

decide not to divide on the Third Reading of the Bill, I will renew my offer. I suggest that the period of extension in cases of difficulty should be one of two years, which is considerably longer than I originally had in mind. As I say, I think it is quite unnecessary, but if it relieves anxiety among hon. Members opposite and among certain local authorities which are said to be concerned about it—of which I have no evidence—I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Lindgren: In order to get it quite clear, would the right hon. Gentleman's offer include Government contributions on deficiencies? Does it mean that during the extra two years those authorities who have sought such contributions, or which, in the Minister's view, require them, would be subject to the same conditions as under the existing five years?

Mr. Sandys: I will naturally consider that. The simplest way of dealing with it would be to draft the Amendment—which might have to be moved in another place—in such a way as to enable the discretionary grant to be continued after 1960. That can perfectly well be done within the scope of the Financial Resolution, and it would then leave it completely open to the Minister, who, after all, is responsible to Parliament, to make up the grant to such an extent as may be thought necessary.

Mr. Mitchison: What about the other grants?

Mr. Gibson: Under the present arrangements, 75 per cent. of the net annual grant should be borne by the Treasury. If this proposal were adopted, would that stop? If it would not, then how is it that the proposal is in order while the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) is out of order?

Mr. Sandys: They are two quite different points. The hon. Gentleman's proposal affected equalisation grants, but had nothing to do with grants under this Bill.
Any grants in operation for lease or purchase before the end of 1960 will continue, and it was quite unnecessary under this Amendment to prevent them from continuing. So far as any expenses beyond 1960 are concerned,


they can be dealt with, and, naturally, I give the Committee the assurance that they will be dealt with in a proper and generous way by means of the discretionary grant which is not limited under the Bill. It can cope with anything which the House may decide is required. I think that the whole position is completely safeguarded in that way.
I am not pressing hon. Members opposite to accept this proposal. I realise that they will wish to record their view that an additional five years is the right figure, and, for that reason, they will no doubt wish to divide in favour of the Amendment, unsatisfactory though its provisions are.

Mr. Shurmer: Upon the question of the general principle of an extension of two years, until 1962-if a local authority came forward and proved that, owing to unforeseen circumstances, it was unable to complete its task within that time, would the Minister consider still further extending the period on behalf of that local authority? He could do so; his offer is flexible.

Mr. Sandys: Two years means two years. My firm belief is that local authorities will complete this work quite comfortably within five years.

Mr. Shurmer: We shall see.

Mr. Sandys: I am trying to meet the anxieties expressed by hon. Members opposite, that in some cases local authorities might find that they were unable to complete the task within five years. My view is that an extra two years will be more than sufficient to take care of the more extreme cases. I expect that hon. Members opposite will wish to record their views now, but I would ask them to consider, between now and the Third Reading, whether they will not accept the offer I have made, for the sake of agreement.

Mr. Mitchison: I feel in considerable difficulty about an offer of this kind. As an offer made without a tie it would be a reasonable compromise, but the Minister is asking us not to accept what he apparently thinks would be right-and what we think would be right as far as it goes—unless we are prepared not to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Surely we may have other objections

to the Bill which we are entitled, and, indeed, bound to express by going into the Division Lobby when the Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, is put.
It is rather immoral—in a Parliamentary sense only, I agree, but still immoral—for a Minister upon the Government Front Bench to make an offer and to tie up that offer with the condition that we shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make that a condition of his offer. We should have no objection to his expressing a wish in the matter, but, to start with, we do not know what he will do about the remainder of the Bill, or how many contentious Amendments he will agree to. Surely he is not going to tell us that he will not accept any until he has heard what we say about them?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not asking anyone to express a view about this flatter now. By the time we reach the Third Reading hon. Members will see which Amendments have been accepted and which have not. They will be able to look at the Bill as a whole. I made my suggestion because I thought that it might be helpful but, if it is not, I ask hon. Members opposite to disregard it.

Mr. Mitchison: Then it is not conditional upon our not voting against the Third Reading?

Mr. Sandys: I am not asking hon. Members opposite to accept my suggestion. I regard this as a totally unnecessary Amendment, but if an extension of two years would please them and would result in our being able to agree upon the Bill in its final form—it has been much amended, and, in the view of hon. Members opposite, it has been much improved — I am prepared to make this proposal, purely for the sake of agreement. If it does not secure agreement, however, I do not wish to proceed with an Amendment which I regard as basically unnecessary.

Mr. W. Edwards: Is the Minister's offer to extend the period to 1962 conditional upon hon. Members upon this side of the Committee not voting against the Third Reading? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that


if we vote against the Bill upon Third Reading the period in question will revert to 1960, and he will not be prepared to extend it to 1962?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Sandys: I have made myself quite clear.

Mr. Edwards: You have not.

Mr. Lindgren: The statement to which we have just listened is most unsatisfactory in every respect. All the hon. Members who have spoken—including one hon. Member on the Minister's side of the Committee—are men and women who have to deal with this problem every day of their lives in local government. If they do not know the extent of the problem, who does? The Minister, sitting in Whitehall, in the seclusion of his office, may have his own views, and may consider that this task can be completed by 1960, but he has heard the voices of men and women who are doing the job, and yet all he has to say is that he thinks that an extension will not be necessary.
Some of us have been in local government for a long time, dealing with matters affecting the lives of the people. Hon. Members opposite who are solicitors may smile They are dealing with the property on behalf of the landlords, but we are dealing with it on behalf of the people who live in it. The only difference between hon. Members opposite who are solicitors and ourselves is that they receive a fee for their work and we do it for nothing.

Mr. Hay: And a rotten job the hon. Members opposite make of it.

Mr. Lindgren: Oh. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) is now saying that hon. Members who bring to the House an experience of local government matters have not made a good job of local government. Although I may be praising myself, I should say that those who are most effective in the House, especially in matters of social legislation, are those who know what it involves and who carry out in the field the job involved.
Lawyers can sit here and gamble with words—there are lawyers on this side of the Committee and they agree with me, but I am dealing with the ones opposite at the moment. According to the Minis-

ter, the lawyers upon this side of the Committee could not even word the Amendment in the right way.
Our view is that the Bill deals with people's lives, and we know what that means. Why are we suspicious about the Bill? We believe that the Bill has been introduced for the benefit of the landlords. The tenants do not need the Bill. It gives an advantage to the landlords at the expense of the tenants.
Why are we suspicious about the effect that it will have upon housing generally? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry in which the Minister now serves we did all that we could to reduce requisitioning and to encourage local authorities to hand back houses, especially those belonging to owners of one house who wanted to return to them. Local authorities co-operated fully in that aim.
Thousands upon thousands of houses were released to the owners who wanted to re-occupy them, those houses having been let during the war and then requisitioned either during or just subsequent to the war. Every one of the tenants who were moved out, and had previously come from a bombed house, was transferred by the local authority to a council house to the detriment of someone who was already upon the housing list. In carrying out the ordinary day-to-day job of handling derequisitioning for the benefit of the single-house landlord, local authorities therefore endangered the prospects of ordinary applicants who were already upon the housing lists.
It is true that during the Committee stage the Minister offered, when the appropriate time came, to accept certain Amendments to reduce the opportunity —which we feared existed when the Bill was introduced—of owners securing their properties and the tenants concerned being left high and dry by the local authorities—or the landlords obtaining their properties merely for the purpose of reselling them at a profit.
If those Amendments which are on the Order Paper are accepted by the Minister, and I have no reason to doubt that he will accept them, it will make it even more difficult for local authorities to finish this job by 1960. The London boroughs and outer London boroughs in particular, if


they are not to prejudice the applicants already on their lists, cannot do the job by 1960. It is an impossibility. That also applies to cities like Birmingham.

6.0 p.m.

We are asking that there should be an opportunity for extension where a local authority satisfies the Minister that it will be necessary. The Minister has given his view, and I will give mine. Whether the Minister accepts the Amendment or not —whether he puts in the two years or not in another place—the problem will still be there in 1960, and there will have to be some amendment at some time. We are asking the Minister now to relieve local authorities of a considerable amount of anxiety as to whether or not, in the light of the circumstances which obtain and the way in which they handle the problem between now and 1960, the Minister will give them an extension.

I accept the Minister's castigation of the wording of the Amendment. If we can deal with this problem in the correct way, surely the matter of words is not one which the Government ought to boggle ever. We are not wedded to the words of the Amendment. We would gladly allow the Minister to take over the whole Amendment and reintroduce it in its correct form in another place.

The Minister has made an offer in regard to the two years. I will certainly discuss that on the appropriate occasion, but I must say that I do not like the Minister, at the outset, offering a concession with the proviso that we do not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Either the Amendment is right or It is wrong. If there is substance in it—and the Minister tends to admit it, by the offer of two years—

Mr. Sandys: No, I do not. It is unnecessary.

Mr. Lindgren: If it is unnecessary, and the Minister takes that view, he should withdraw his offer. We consider that an extension is necessary. We do not say that it is necessary for every authority. We are prepared to make concessions about the selection of authorities, but I do not like accepting the Minister's offer on the basis of conditions about voting at some later stage.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Legislation by blackmail.

Mr. Lindgren: I shall, of course, discuss the matter with my colleagues in the light of what we shall do later about the Bill, so as to give the Minister an indication of what we propose to do. It is because we believe that this matter will have to be dealt with, either in this Bill or by amendment at some subsequent stage prior to 1960, that we propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman: I do not like the Minister's offer. We on this side of the Committee feel that the Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is a property owners' Bill which will inflict hardship on thousands of families. We were invited by the Minister not to show our disapproval of the whole Bill on Third Reading if there is what amounts to a modest improvement of it by the Minister. Quite frankly, I do not like that at all.
In 1962, the problem will still remain. It may be a slightly diminished problem, but it will still be there, and the Bill will still be a bad Bill. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will not accept the offer. I would also point out that the Minister's offer is a discretionary one. He is proposing to exercise his discretion as to what local authorities receive the benefits of this offer in 1960.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: That is what hon. Members opposite are asking for.

Mr. Silverman: I know, but the Minister has said that this Amendment is unnecessary. That throws considerable light upon how that discretion is likely to be used in 1960.

Mr. Sandys: Why I think the Amendment is unnecessary is because I believe that local authorities will have finished the job before March, 1960. [Horn. MEMBERS: " They cannot do it."] I am giving the reason why I consider it unnecessary. Hon. Gentlemen seem to attribute some other motives. The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was that the decision about this extension would be a matter for the discretion of the Minister. That is, of course, the purport of the Amendment of the party opposite.

Mr. Silverman: I agree that it is. That is why I think that this is a very modest


Amendment. It is an Amendment which the Minister ought to agree to without any reservation or bargain whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman bases the Bill, apparently, on the assumption that the requisitioning of houses will, in fact, disappear by 1960. I should like to ask two questions on that aspect. First, has a single local authority with a substantial number of requisitioned houses indicated to him that it can liquidate its problem of requisitioning by 1960? If so, I will gladly give way to him, so that he can tell me what local authority has stated that it can do so.

Mr. Sandys: As I have said on more than one occasion, the whole of the scheme contained in the Bill in great detail has been approved and drawn up in agreement with all the local authority associations, representing all the local authorities.

Mr. Silverman: It is all very well for the Minister to talk about local authority associations which represent so many hundreds of local authorities. I am dealing with the specific local authorities concerned—fewer than 50—which have a substantial number of requisitioned houses. Has any one of those local authorities indicated to the Minister that it could liquidate this problem by 1960?

Mr. Lewis: The Minister himself represents one part of Wandsworth which, I believe, has the largest number of requisitioned houses in London. Would my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether his local authority has given him an assurance that it can deal with this problem by 1960?

Mr. Silverman: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a general question which includes his own local authority. The Minister has not indicated one local authority which can liquidate this problem by 1960.
The Minister's argument is apparently based on the sheerest optimism. It is baseless optimism, because he has not shown any reason why this problem should evaporate. If he believes that the problem will have disappeared by 1960, why have the Bill at all? The Amendment deals with one problem with which the Minister has not dealt. What is to happen in 1960 if, notwithstanding the

Minister's optimism, there is still a large number of requisitioned houses? What will happen to the tenants of those houses? The Minister has not answered that question. Will they be turned into the streets? If not, the only alternative is that they will be rehoused at the expense of other people on the housing register.

Mr. Hay: They will stay where they are.

Mr. Silverman: They cannot stay where they are. They will be trespassers in 1960. The council can buy only if the owner wants to sell.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I can shorten the debate by reminding the hon. Gentleman that under the Bill the council has the right to grant for leasing a house and to grant to help it to buy the house. Not only do councils have the right to buy by agreement, but nothing in the Bill, as I explained at considerable length, both on Second Reading and the Committee stage, deprives them of the right, which they already have, of buying the house by compulsory purchase. I went into that point at considerable length in reply to an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) during the Committee stage. I assure hon. Members that that is correct.
If the council cannot make satisfactory arrangements for a lease or purchase or persuading the owners to take on the licensees as statutory tenants, in the last resort the local authority still has the right to buy the house by compulsory purchase. That is why I cannot conceive that local authorities will not be able to complete the job within five years.

Mr. Mitchison: Might I also remind my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) of the Minister's own words? He told us that there was no hope at all—
…I make it quite clear, no hope at all—in the majority of the London boroughs where the problem is acute of providing within five years alternative accommodation for all the people now living in these requisitioned houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A,3rd March, 1955; c. 43.]
He did not mention Birmingham, unfortunately.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I wish that he had done so.

Mr. Silverman: The problem exists in Birmingham, as well as elsewhere. Does the Minister remember the Housing Act, 1936? I very much doubt whether such power of compulsory purchase exists. if it does, it exists subject to the Minister's consent in the case of each individual house.

Mr. H. Nicholls: In the Amendment, and in their speeches, hon. Members opposite are asking that the Minister shall give his consent, and the Minister is explaining very clearly that the Minister of the day will have the power to give consent for the compulsory purchase if it is needed because the owner will not sell.

Mr. Silverman: Suppose the right hon. Gentleman is correct, and that this compulsory purchase power does exist. It is subject to the consent of the Minister, that is consent in the case of each individual house. It will be a lengthy process to get the Minister's consent in each case. Goodness knows how long the procedure will take.

Mr. Nicholls: Even if the procedure is as long-winded as the hon. Member is suggesting, the tenant could not be turned out of the house while that procedure was going on, and I thought that that was the whole burden of the argument.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The tenant can be turned out of the house in 1960 unless there has been compulsory purchase before that.
What I am saying is that this is a slow, laborious, difficult and expensive process, even if it is correct in law, which I very

much doubt. I do not think that local authorities go in for this procedure. I do not know of any local authority which does. Even in those circumstances, the local authorities would have to pay a price based on the scarcity value of the house, with vacant possession.

Everybody knows that local authorities can buy houses, if they so desired, at the present time, but they have to pay enormous prices to do so. The price will be based upon the vacant possession selling value, which in no case will be the real value of the house. The Minister's arguments are insufficient to show that the problem will disappear within the time he proposes. The Bill is, therefore, a bad Bill. I think that the Minister's offer is unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I want to make a suggestion. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be stubborn about this matter. As I understand it, he says that he is certain that this provision will not be required after 1960. That is one view. As I understand it, many of the local authorities say it will be necessary to extend the time to 1965. If the Minister is so certain about his view, why not make the date 1965, and, in the Bill, give the House power, by Resolution, to bring the provision to an end at an earlier date, if its usefulness has expired? That would be a proper solution, and if the Minister does not accept that he is being nothing other than recalcitrant.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:-

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 228.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Bowles, F. G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Deer, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N.


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Clunie, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Benson, G.
Coldrick, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Beswick, F.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bing, C. H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Blenkinsop, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fernyhough, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Daises, P.
Finch, H. J.


Bowden, M. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)




Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Short, E. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Sparks, J. A.


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thornton, E.


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Timmons, J.


Houghton, Douglas
Midfield, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hubbard, T. F.
Oswald, T.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, D.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paton, J.
West, D. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Janner, B.
Pearl, T. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Popplewell, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Porter, C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Jones, James (Wrexham)
Probert, A. R.
Williams, David (Heath)


Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kenyon, C.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Willis, E. G.


Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, C. M.
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lewis, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William
Mr. Wallace sad Mr. James Johnson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert
Foster, John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Armstrong, C. W.
Channon, H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hn.R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Glover, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Banks, Col. C.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gower, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Grimond, J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Black, C. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvie, Watt, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hay, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Duthie, W. S.
Heath, Edward


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. C. T.
Fell, A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Craeme
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Burden, F. F. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Campbell, Sir David
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.

Holt, A. F.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Shepherd, William


Hope, Lord John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Speir, R. M.


Hughes Hallett, Vioe-Admiral J.
Maude, Angus
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Maydon, LL.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gtn, S.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Heave, Airey
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Johnson, Erio (Blackley)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Oakshott, H. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerr, H. W.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Tooling, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. P. (M'nm'th)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Mr. C. N.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Plckthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd, George, Maj. Rt. Hon. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Renton, D. L. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wellwood, W.


McCallum, Major D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


MoKibbin, A. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Woollam, John Victor


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Scott, Sir Donald



Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RELEASE OF DWELLINGS FALLING VACANT.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out " subsection (2) of."
I hope that we are about to reach a little calmer and perhaps a more cooperative atmosphere than we have so far experienced. The Amendment amalgamates three Amendments that were considered in the Standing Committee. Those the Minister viewed with favour and said he was prepared to accept their principle if the wording was made appropriate to the Bill. I understand that the Minister is fully satisfied with the present wording and, from that point of view, is prepared to accept it. There seems, therefore, very little point in my making any lengthy speech, particularly as I suppose there will be no Press to report it tomorrow morning.
The Clause as it stands does not leave any discretion to the local authority. It makes it necessary for the local authority, when facing difficulties in dealing with this problem, to consult the Minister on each and every individual case. For instance, if the local authority, for purposes of derequisitioning houses in its area, wishes to transfer a licensee from one requisitioned house to another, it cannot, under the Bill, do so without making specific application to the Minister. The Amendment would allow the local authority to make such a transfer.

6.30 p.m.

Again, if a local authority wishes to deal with a licensee who is in arrears with his rent, and gives that licensee notice to quit, as is quite normal, then, as the Clause stands, the local authority would not be able to retain possession of the dwelling if, at the end of a period of a few weeks, the licensee had paid his rent, because the licence would have come to an end.

Perhaps the most important example relates to relatives of licensees. As the Clause stands at the moment, if a licensee dies the members of his family are not able to continue occupation unless the local authority makes a special request to the Minister. In the next Amendment, in page 3, line 32, by which we seek to add three new subsections, discretionary power is given to local authorities in such cases. If these Amendments are accepted, they will assist in getting rid of these problems concerning requisitioned property.

Mr. Sandys: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is an Amendment the text of which has been agreed. It has met points on which I gave assurances, and I would, therefore, recommend its acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to unless " in line 34 and insert:

(3) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, the right of a local authority to retain possession of a dwelling shall not be terminated under this section if within the said period a fresh licence for the occupation of the dwelling is granted by the authority—

(a) to the former licensee of the dwelling, in order to provide for a variation in the terms of the former licence;
(b) in the case of his death, to a statutory successor of his; or
(c) in pursuance of arrangements for an exchange of accommodation between the licensee and another person being the licensee or tenant of any other dwelling in the possession of or belonging to the local authority;
(4) Where a licence for the occupation of a requisitioned dwelling is terminated by the local authority o has been so terminated before the commencement of this Act—

(a) for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the dwelling; or
(b) on the ground of non-payment of rent by the licensee,
then (notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section) the right of the local authority to retain possession of the dwelling shall not be terminated under this section if within a period of three months beginning with the date of the termination of the licence a fresh licence for the occupation of the dwelling is granted by the authority to the last previous licensee of the dwelling; and in such cases there shall be substituted a period of three months for the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(5) After the date mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the local authority shall not

permit any person to enter into occupation of the dwelling (except in pursuance of such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) of this section).—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(7) If in the case of any local authority it appears to the Minister that it is necessary so to do in order to ensure that alternative accommodation is reserved for any persons who may be displaced by virtue of section five or section six of this Act, he may give directions requiring that authority to retain possession of any requisitioned dwellings, notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, until such time as he may authorise their release; and in any such case, subsection (3) of this section shall not apply in relation to the occupation of the dwellings in pursuance of licences granted to persons displaced as aforesaid.

This is an Amendment to which I have already referred in the course of the debate earlier today. It enables the Minister to ensure that local authorities maintain a certain pool of requisitioned houses as they become vacant, instead of releasing them, as they might otherwise do, either by their own decision or under the release Clause, so as to make quite sure that there are vacant premises available to accommodate people who may be displaced as a result of a decision of the court under Clause 5. I think I have fully explained the purpose of the Amendment in Committee, and it is moved to meet wishes expressed at that time.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think my hon. Friends will be anything but glad to accept the Amendment, but I should like to find out just what it means. The reason I ask is this. The Minister made some observations about the Money Resolution which led me to wonder what the word " retain " means. That is the word which caused so much trouble, not only to my ignorant though supposedly learned self, but also to people who know a great deal more about Money Resolutions than I do. Does " retain " mean " retain after 31st March, 1960 "?

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: The Minister shakes his head, but is he certain that he is right? Clause I (2) begins by saying:
 Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act,….
and those words appear to govern the whole matter. Accordingly, it seems to me that when that has been said, and


we then say that possession may be retained, and no time-limit is imposed, there is no reason why there should not be retention—and, indeed, I hope that there will be—beyond 31st March, 1960.
A similar point arises in connection with quite a number of Amendments, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman outright that what he said about the Money Resolution makes me more doubtful whether he is right in saying that " retain possession " can only mean retaining possession until that date.

Mr. Sandys: I am assured that this Clause does not give power to extend retention beyond 1960. I am perfectly confident that it does not but, since the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his legal knowledge and experience, raises a doubt about this, I will certainly look into it. If there should be any difficulty on that point, I shall see that it is clarified in another place in the sense that I have indicated—that is to say, that it is not intended to provide for any retention beyond 1960.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4,—(ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSEE AS STATUTORY TENANT BY OWNER.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after " authority " to insert:
 may subject to such directions, if any, as may be given by the Minister, and ".
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment in page 4, line 3, at the same time, as the two Amendments are related. This again is a point which the Minister said he would accept. It gives discretion to the local authority to take some initiative in getting the owners of property to agree to take over the licensees as statutory tenants. This leaves full power in the hands of the Minister, but it gives local authorities the opportunity of negotiating with the owner concerned to ascertain whether he will be so agreeable.

Mr. Sandys: This also is an agreed Amendment, and I recommend its acceptance.

Mr. A. Evans: I am glad that the Minister has decided to accept these Amendments. I think he will agree that it is most important that this Clause

should operate as widely as possible. We all hope that that will be the case, and that as many owners as possible will be encouraged to accept the provisions of the Clause. I hope that the Minister. when administering the Clause, and when scrutinising the proposals of the local authorities, will do everything possible to encourage the local authorities to get the provisions of the Clause adopted in as many instances as possible, for I am convinced that the Clause is the pivot of the Bill, and that if it is widely operated the Bill may achieve some measure of success.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 3, leave out " he may specify " and insert:
 may be decided by the authority or specified by the Minister, as the case may be."—[Mr, Key.]

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(5)Any sums payable by a local authority under the last foregoing subsection shall, unless otherwise agreed upon between the authority and landlord, be paid in arrear at intervals of three months; and for the purpose of the enactments relating to income tax, such sums shall be deemed to be received by the landlord as rent paid by the tenant.
The Amendment is tabled partly to meet a point which I undertook to deal with in connection with an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). That is the first half of the Amendment. The second half deals with a point about taxation which formed the subject of the Ways and Means Resolution last night. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mitehison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, at the end, to insert:

(6)—(a) A notice of acceptance under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) If, at the expiration of the period specified in that behalf no notice of acceptance has been given under subsection (2) of this section, the local authority may at any time within four weeks thereafter apply to the county for an order directing acceptance; and the court, unless satisfied that there is good reason for withholding acceptance, shall make such an order.
(c) For the purposes of this subsection and subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, good reason for withholding acceptance shall be such reason as would justify a refusal to consent to an assignment of a lease made at the rent upon the terms and conditions stated in subsections (3) and (4) of this section


and containing a covenant against assignment without the owner's consent, subject to a provision that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
(d) On the making as aforesaid of an order directing acceptance, notice of acceptance shall be deemed to have been given (notwithstanding any period specified in the notice of invitation) on the day of the order or on such later day as the court may in the order direct.
(e) Section seventeen of the Rent Act of 1920 (which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules and to give directions and extends the jurisdiction of county courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall apply in relation to any proceedings under this subsection as it applies to proceedings under that Act.
I hope that the Amendment will find a similar ready acceptance. We tried, in the Standing Committee, to get the right hon. Gentleman to accept the proposition that these invitations to owners to accept the licensees as statutory tenants should be turned into directions obliging the owners to do so when they received the directions. We failed, and the object of the Amendment is to provide something half-way—perhaps I should say three-quarters of the way—because its effect will be that when the owner receives this invitation he must not unreasonably refuse to accept it. It will put the invitation in the same position as a request to an owner to accept an assignment of a lease under the very common provision that his consent is required but shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The Amendment raises the whole question, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), of whether the Clause will work at all and, if it fails to work, in which direction it ought to fail to work. At present, the matter is entirely in the hands of the owner. There is no obligation whatever on him to accept the invitation about which we have been talking, there is no obligation whatever on him to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, and, if it suits his pocket better to turn the licensee out, he is fully entitled to do so, and is not in the least bound to accept him as a statutory tenant.

6.45 p.m.

My right hon. Friends, hon. Friends and I say without hesitation that these licensees are, on the whole, poor people, many of whom suffered severely during

the war. They are living in houses where many of them have been for a considerable time, and which have become their homes. For that purpose it does not matter whether, legally, they are licensees or statutory tenants. From the human point of view those houses are their homes, and it is now proposed, because of the legal, the statutory, distinction between the position of a licensee and the position of a tenant, to turn them out—and to do it solely because of that distinction and because the owner is not willing to accept them as statutory tenants.

Look at the position of the owner. He may require the house to live in himself, and there is provision in another part of the Bill for him to get the house in that case, always subject to a weighing of hardship on the one side and the other. He can do that by going to court under provisions which will be broadly similar to those in the Rent Acts. He is, therefore, all right in that case.

But only a small number of owners, we are told, desire to live in the houses themselves or are suffering any hardship at all, except financial hardship. It is purely a financial question. Are we to allow an owner, because it suits his pocket better, possibly by quite a small sum, to turn out a man and his family who have been living for a long time in the house and have come to regard it and treat it as their home; or are we to say that this is not the kind of thing which ought to be allowed when the only distinction between the occupant of the house and the occupant who would have Rent Acts protection is that one is a licensee and the other is a statutory tenant?

We ought to remember that these owners, and particularly the owners who own a considerable amount of property and may well be limited companies doing this kind of business, are in this position only because of the exigencies of the war and the destruction which it caused. But for that there would be no requisitioning, no licensees and no need to consider this Measure. But for that the owners would have statutory tenants in these houses.

Why should these owners be allowed to make a financial gain by turning these people out because they have gone there under conditions of war and widespread


destruction? It is something which we cannot defend that, when they are in this position, by reason of the war, of enemy damage in London and of considerable hardship already suffered by the poorest people in London, these owners should be entitled to something to which otherwise they would certainly not be entitled.

All we ask under the Amendment is that these owners should be placed in the same position as if they were already dealing with statutory tenants instead of with licensees. It seems to me to be a question of what is right and what is wrong between two persons. One may be a legal person, as it were, a property-owning company, or an individual owner, large or small. The other is bound to be a human being and his family, bound to be a person who has found it extraordinarily hard to get a house, bound to be a person who suffered as a result of the war and the destruction, and who, for that reason is a licensee instead of a statutory tenant. He is, therefore, a person whom it is our duty in this Committee to protect.

I hope that the Minister will not look at the Amendment only from the point of view of the property owner. I am certain that he will bear in mind that it is commonly said of his party that it prefers the interests of the landlord and money interests to those of the occupant of the home and social interests. if he refuses to accept an Amendment of this sort, he will merely add justification to the criticism which is frequently made, which in fact has already been made here today, and confirm in the minds of any of us who have any doubt about it—and I am bound to say that I am not quite certain whether I am in that group or not—that this Bill is fundamentally a Bill for the protection of landlords and of landlords' rights, and a Bill which gives preference to money rights over social rights.

Mrs. Jeger: There is little I wish to add to the irrefutable arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I want to add a word or two from my own experience, which makes me support the idea of some compulsion on landlords to keep the licensee as a statutory tenant. There is a very strong temptation in London for landlords to turn their unfurnished property into furnished rooms.

That is a very great financial temptation, and I think that it will be in the minds of many landlords when considering whether to act on the provisions of this Clause.
As the Clause stands at present, it is entirely optional to the landlord to keep these people on or not. If the landlord looks at his property from a moneymaking point of view and has any sense, he will see that, by getting the licensees out and furnishing the rooms as modestly as possible to bring them within the definition of furnished accommodation, he can let them much more advantageously.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Lady say how the landlord can get the licensee out? This is one of the alternatives. If the landlord wants to let furnished, or to sell with vacant possession, how can he get the people out?

Mrs. Jeger: Automatically in 1960 these people will go out. As the Clause stands, it is entirely optional for the landlord. We have to go to the landlord and say, " Please, does it suit you to keep these people on? " I am suggesting that there may be some landlords who will say, " It does not suit me to keep them on as I can make a much better investment by getting this whole street of houses." That is happening all over London, although the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) may not know of it. Because that is happening, I want to see some compulsion put on the landlord to keep the licensees as statutory tenants, whether he wants to or not, because I think his wishes are the least important factor in the case.

Mr. Sparks: I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept. As hon. Members have already said, the Clause appears to be entirely optional. The right hon. Gentleman may very well be faced with a difficult situation. Although I admit at once that probably there are some owners who would accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, there must be some, generally in London, who desire not to accept licensees as statutory tenants. When first approached as to whether they will accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, they will probably adopt a dilatory attitude in making up their minds whether or not to


accede to the request of the local authority. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that a number of them, when pressed finally, will decline to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant.
We are told that then the question of a lease may be discussed, or offered. Again there will be a long delay and, finally, there will be the decision, " We do not desire to lease the property." If then the right hon. Gentleman says there is to be compulsory purchase before 31st March, 1960, to the extent that he does so he will help to provide security of tenure for the occupants. So far as I can understand, his policy throughout has been not to authorise purchase except as the very last resort. If he adopts that attitude he will find that by the terminal date quite a number of these places will cease to be requisitioned and the owner will know that. The owner will know that if he can protract the interval and is able to get possession of the house on 31st March, 1960, it will pay him handsomely.
The right hon. Gentleman represents a London constituency and must know of the racket which is taking place in the congested areas of London where considerable sums of money are being made by letting furnished rooms in these houses. An owner of a house could let furnished rooms at £2, £2 10s. or, perhaps, £3 a room, and it may be a 12-roomed house. At £2 a room he would be getting roughly £24 a week by letting all the rooms as against a statutory rent of perhaps £100 a year, or approximately £2 a week. Throughout the incentive is for the owner not to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, nor to agree to a lease, and, if possible, to resist any purchase of his house.
I think the right hon. Gentleman should be perfectly satisfied in agreeing to the principle of our Amendment. Where there is no valid reason why the owner should refuse to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, he should be directed or compelled to accept. Financially, he would be no worse off than if his house had not been requisitioned at all. If the house had not been requisitioned at all, the chances are that the landlord would have had a tenant protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. In that event, if the licensee were permitted to remain as a statutory tenant,

the landlord would receive the same by way of standard rent as any other landlord owning property controlled by the Rent Acts. He would not lose anything by being directed to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to do something to place this decision on the courts, he will find that a considerable number of owners will decline to accept licensees as statutory tenants, will decline a lease, and resist compulsory purchase. By that attitude they will, as it were, dam up the whole process of the Bill until, by the terminal date, the problem will be much as we have emphasised on many previous occasions. There will be a considerable residue of these cases not otherwise dealt with in the Bill in which licensees will be trespassers and in danger of becoming homeless. If the Minister adopts the principle of the Amendment, he will to some extent reduce that contingency and will help very much to solve the problem.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) said that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) were irrefutable. Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer them.
I think I can put the point very briefly. These houses were vacant when they were requisitioned by the State. It is therefore quite clear that it is the duty of the State to return those houses vacant to the owner when requisitioning ends.

Mr. Mitchison: They were only vacant as a result of the war.

Mr. Sandys: Something was taken away and, when dealing with a house, it obviously makes a difference whether it is vacant or not.

Mr. Sparks: Some were given willingly.

Mr. Sandys: The houses were compulsorily acquired under wartime requisitioning powers as vacant houses. Therefore it seems right that, when requisitioning comes to an end, unless agreement is reached, or unless the houses are compulsorily purchased, the property should be returned to the owner in the state in which it was when it was compulsorily taken from him.

Mr. J. Silverman: Because of the extent to which the property was vacant when taken from him, why should an owner be in a better position than the owner of an occupied rent-protected tenancy?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is dealing with particular cases. Some cases are of one kind and some of another. I am taking the very simple proposition that, If something is taken compulsorily from somebody, it ought to be given back to him in the same state and form in which it was taken from him. Two things have to be done. The property has to be returned vacant to the owner, and the damage caused by dilapidations during the period of requisition has to be made good—unless other arrangements can be made by agreement, or, in the last resort, through compulsory purchase.
The purpose of the Clause, on which the Amendment arises, is to encourage owners to take on the existing licensees by agreement as statutory tenants. The purpose of the Clause is not to compel owners to do so. What is suggested in the Amendment is that an owner should be forced—compelled—to let his house to a tenant chosen for him by the local authority and at a rent fixed for him by Parliament. That amounts to compulsory leasing. Although hon. Members opposite may see a difference, I cannot see the difference between compulsory leasing and requisitioning.
If an owner is compelled to take on somebody who is chosen for him and if the rent is fixed, I cannot see that the house has in any way been derequisitioned. It amounts to compulsory leasing, which is requisitioning, for an indefinite period, for the lifetime of the licensee and of his successor. That is not a proposition which we can properly include in a Bill, the primary purpose of which is to derequisition houses, and for that reason I am quite unable to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman: Surely, there are seven or eight million rent-protected tenancies among which that happens every day by the operation of the law. Why should there be any difference under this system?

Mr. Sandys: If we accepted the Amendment, the whole of the rest of the Bill

could go by the board, for it would provide a complete answer to the whole problem. All that would happen is that every owner would be compelled to keep on every licensee in his house and the problem of requisitioning would be solved to the extent that it would.go on for ever. But that is not a proposition which we could possibly contemplate, and it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill, which has been approved by Parliament.

Mr. Gibson: What the Minister has just said indicates the deep difference of view between the two sides of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman wants to protect first the interests of the property owners and he does not seem to care very much what happens to the human welfare of the tenants in the houses.
It is quite true that these houses were empty when they were requisitioned, because the war was in progress. We were all suffering. A lot of us remained in London and continued to face the bombs when the owners of these properties were running away into safe areas. It is quite false to talk about empty houses in wartime as being on the same basis as empty houses in a normal time of peace.
We had to requisition these houses because so many of the families who stayed in London were bombed out. So many, indeed, were bombed out that we had to take large blocks of flats well outside the boroughs in which people were bombed, because in the main it was the poor boroughs which got the worst of the bombing in the residential areas. Therefore, it is wrong to say that a special view must be taken of the problem because the properties were empty when they were requisitioned. Even if the war situation which brought about requisitioning had not arisen, I would say that human welfare should come before the interests of property.

Mr. Sandys: May I remind the hon. Member, who is well acquainted with these facts, that 50 per cent. of the houses have been requisitioned since the war? They were requisitioned right up to 1949.

Mr. Gibson: Eighty thousand Londoners had their homes completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands had their houses severely damaged. Mine was damaged three times during the war.


Most of the repairs I have paid for myself, because I did not like some of the rigmarole that went on.
People who owned houses and left them were not the only ones who suffered. The people who suffered most were those who remained—and that means the great mass of Londoners, excluding the old, the blind and the children who were evacuated. In the main, the working population remained and stuck it out. Many of them were killed and 80,000 houses were destroyed.
I am not much impressed, therefore, by the argument that because property was empty when it was requisitioned it ought to be handed back empty to owners, particularly when we remember that in very few cases are the owners small private owners. Most of the houses are owned by property companies.

Mr. Hay: They ran away, did they?

Mr. Gibson: They ran away the same as the others. They went to the safe seaside resorts in Wales and other parts of the country.
The need for the Amendment to put teeth into the Clause is obvious. The borough part of which the Minister represents in Parliament has already tried this arrangement. It has tried to get landlords to accept licensees as tenants but has completely failed. Let me remind the Committee of the figures. In Wandsworth, we have 5,541 requisitioned dwellings in which families are living, a higher figure than any other London borough and, I understand, more than anywhere else in the country. But we have a borough council which loves the policy of the right hon. Gentleman—at any rate, at the moment; we shall alter that before long. The borough council has tried hard to carry out the Minister's policy before he introduced the Bill. So anxious about it has been the borough council that it adopted a resolution accepting the Bill and saying that it would carry it into operation even before the Bill had its Second Reading.
The borough council tried to get rid of requisitioning by inviting owners to accept licensees as statutory tenants or something similar. It sent 2,031 invitations to property owners to accept tenants and to have their property back. But there was not

one single reply, and for a very good reason—

The Chairman: Whether there were replies or not, the hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson: The Clause is headed
 Acceptance of licensee as statutory tenant by owner.
I am trying to show that where this arrangement has been tried, it has completely failed because there is no power, whereas the Amendment would add teeth to the Clause and help to make it work. But if I am ruled out of order, Sir Charles, I have to accept your Ruling. However, I had very nearly finished on that point.
Unless some teeth are put into the Clause, it will be an absolute failure. I hope, therefore, that in spite of the Minister's love of the defence of property—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Sir Charles, I should hate to be deprived of an opportunity of hearing any more about what happened to the notices of invitation. The effect of the Amendment is to put something in the nature of a compulsory direction in place of a mere invitation, and I respectfully submit to you, Sir Charles, that if one is to consider whether that is right or wrong one is entitled to consider experience in the matter of invitations, to see if anything is needed, and whether the Amendment would or would not fill an existing gap. I would, Sir Charles, very respectfully suggest that if there should be any more my hon. Friend could tell us on that, he would on that account be in order in doing so.

The Chairman: The point I was making was that anything that happened before did not happen in connection with the Amendment. The history of what has happened before has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: This Amendment is designed to remedy a trouble which it is thought will arise, and the best proof that that trouble will arise is that it, or something uncommonly like it, has already arisen. I respectfully submit that one is entitled to look at the mischief when one is examining a proposed remedy of it.

The Chairman: I think that if we were to go as far as that in respect of every matter our debates in this Committee would be exceedingly long.

Mr. Gibson: I want to finish by reiterating that this Amendment would put some teeth into the Clause; not many, but it would, at any rate, put in a few teeth. It would help to make it work much more successfully than the voluntary effort by the Wandsworth Borough Council, when the council offered houses back to the owners on condition that they took the tenants of the houses as statutory tenants, or as people of an equivalent status. With that experience before us, and because of the knowledge which, I know, the Government have of this question, for it has been supplied to them in reports month by month, and especially because of the knowledge which, I know, the Minister has, I say that if he wants to make the Clause work he must accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman: It is my view, as it is the view of my hon. Friends, that not only does the Clause lack teeth but it will be stillborn. Many of my hon. Friends share my view, based on our experience, that very few owners will take advantage voluntarily of the Clause. Our experience is that as soon as the owners have had an opportunity of getting hold of property on vacant possession they have sold it right away, provided the property was saleable. If it was not saleable they tried to let it as furnished dwellings at grossly enhanced rentals. They certainly have tried to do so with some of the larger properties.
The likelihood that any considerable number of landlords will take advantage of the Clause is, in my view, entirely nonexistent. The only way in which the Minister can make any use of the Clause is by agreeing to some such Amendment as we have suggested. It is a modest Amendment. It does not put the matter in the control of the local authorities, because they have to go to the county court, and the county court has to make an order. It is not an Amendment which it would be unreasonable for the Minister to accept.

7.15 p.m.

In my view, there is no reason whatever why the owners of these properties should be in a better position than is the owner of any statutory tenancy. Indeed,

they have come off very much better so far. They have had this property, occupied by tenants provided by a council their rents have been collected for them; repairs have been done for them; they have not had to bear arrears of rent. So far, they have come off very well.

Mr. Mitchison: Too well.

Mr. Silverman: Now it is suggested that the property should be handed back to them with vacant possession, and they will be able to sell it at considerably enhanced prices. That is completely wrong. I do not see why there should be this difference of treatment. The Minister has said that the property was taken away from them and that it was vacant at the time and that it should be handed back to them vacant. I cannot see the logic of that. In 1916 and 1920, and again in 1939, we took away certain rights from the owners of rent-protected dwellings. We took away their right to increase the rents. We took away their right to sell with vacant possession. Nobody, not even hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, dare say that those rights should be handed back at the present time.
Why should these rights be handed back to these owners merely on account of the sheer accident that the properties were vacant at the time when councils took them over? I think it is quite wrong. The Amendment does not go very far. As I have said, it is a modest Amendment, and, as I have also said, if the Minister wants the Clause to work effectively, he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I was very disappointed that the Minister did not feel able to accept the Amendment. The case for it has been argued with great cogency by several of my hon. Friends. The Clause, as it stands, gives preferential treatment to a certain class of not exceptionally deserving landlords, and I regret that the Minister has been unable either to accept the Amendment or himself to suggest an alternative. That being so, my hon. Friends have no option but to divide in support of the Amendment, but although we shall divide now, I hope the Minister may give further thought to this matter during the time which must still elapse before the Bill's passage through Parliament is completed.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[7.17 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Peart, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Probert, A. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Houghton, Douglas
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Carmlachie)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J.(Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Clunie, J.
Jones, James (Wrexham)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, P. H.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collins, V. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kinley, J.
Steele, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Thornton, E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Timmons, J


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds, N. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mayhew, C. P.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Messer, Sir F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Heath)


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Forman, J. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gibson C. W.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Glanville James
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willis, E. G.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Oliver, C. H.
Yates, V. F.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR TI-LE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. John Taylor and


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. J. T. Price.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles

NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Armstrong, C. W.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bishop, F. P.
Bullard, D. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Black, C. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Burden, F. F. A.


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Campbell, Sir David


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Robert


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cary, Sir Robert


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Channon, H.

The Committee divided: Ayes 188,Noes 210.

Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jennings, Sir Roland
Raikes, Sir Victor


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robertson, Sir David


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, H. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Scott, Sir Donald


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott-Milner, Cmdr. R.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Fell, A.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKibbin, A. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Grimston Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Studholme, H. G.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
reeling, W.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mayden, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hay, John
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wade, D. W.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Mile'bne)


Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Odey, C. W.
Wellwood, W.


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Page, R. G.
Wills, G.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Woollam, John Victor


Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Legit.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.



Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pitt, Miss E. M.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(RELEASE FOR IMPROVEMENT WORKS.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, after " and " to insert " if necessary to."
Now that we have voted on the sacred right of the landlord to be unreasonable, we must keep him from using improvement works as a reason for getting occupation of a house, and see that he only occupies it when he finds it necessary to

do so in order to carry out the works. I do not think that there can be any dispute about the Amendment. Perhaps it would be convenient if I mentioned the next one, in page 7, line 12, at the same time. There is only one point puzzling my hon. Friends and myself about the second Amendment. It is that it ends mysteriously with the letter "(a)." We have lost the " b"—we wonder whether it is in the right hon. Gentleman's bonnet.

Mr. Sandys: I will look for the "b."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 12, at beginning, insert:
 Where the owner of a house is permitted to occupy it in pursuance of subsection (1) of /his section—

(a)."—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 11, at end, insert:
 rates ' " includes water rents and charges." —[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, to leave out from " to to the end of line 33 and to insert:
a deceased person having been the licensee of a dwelling, means—

(a) where possession of the dwelling was retained by the licensee by virtue of the Rent Acts at the time of his death, a person who retains possession after the licensee's death by virtue of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Rent Act of 1920;
(b) where the licensee was in occupation of the dwelling as licensee at the time of his death, any person who, if possession of the dwelling had been retained by the licensee by virtue of the Rent Acts, would or might have been entitled to retain possession as aforesaid."
The Amendment is consequential upon one which I moved to Clause 3, defining what is meant by a statutory successor. It is to secure that the successor of the licensee gets the same treatment as the successor of a statutory tenant in an ordinary house.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 2.—(APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 37, at end, insert:
 and accordingly the reference to the Crown in subsection (2) of section two of that Act (which regulates the payment of rental compensation) shall be construed as a reference to the local authority."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 4.—(ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSEE AS STATUTORY TENANT BY OWNER.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, at the end, to insert:
to the nature of the interest of the owner in the dwelling and, in such cases as may be so determined, to the character of the dwelling.
This Amendment was foreshadowed during the Committee stage. Its purpose is to allow the Government to prescribe different rates of compensation in respect of different interests and classes of property.

Mr. Hay: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question about this matter. He says that the intention is to enable the Government to prescribe different rates for different interests and classes of property. Does he mean by that that the rates, when prescribed, will be set out as a considerable number, or does he mean, in fact, in every individual case, that the Government will have to consider an individual house and prescribe the rate? The words which we are proposing to insert, when attached to the other words in this paragraph, rather leave that impression.
We have not yet, so far as I know, either in the Standing Committee or today, had any statement by my right hon. Friend as to the rates which he intends to prescribe. If, in answering the point which I have raised, he could say something about that, I should be much obliged.

Mr. Sandys: The Amendment deals primarily with matters like leasehold interests, where it will be desirable to take into account the length of the unexpired lease. I think it is non-controversial and it is essential.

Mr. Hay: I was asking my right hon. Friend particularly about the words "…character of the dwelling." What I had in mind was that that goes a little further than the interests involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. Evans: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out "allow" and to insert "determine."
This is no more than a drafting Amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept. Its purpose is to make sure that when a local authority decides to


vary the rent on a house dealt with under Clause 4, the landlord will be obliged to accept the variation and will also be obliged to accept any corresponding variation in the amount paid by the local authority to the landlord. A similar Amendment was moved in Committee, and the Minister agreed with the purpose of it. He undertook to look at it again, and perhaps he will tell us what he now thinks, and if this Amendment is suitable for acceptance.

Mr. Mitehison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: The Amendment fully conforms with the undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage. The form of it is agreed, and I recommend the House to adopt it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 23. leave out " owner " and insert " landlord."

In line 30, leave out from second " the " to " an " in line 32 and insert " landlord."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 5.—(APPLICATION TO COURT FOR RELEASE FOR OWNER'S OCCUPATION.)

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after " purchase " to insert:
 in pursuance of a contract made.
The object of the words
…(not being an owner whose interest was acquired by purchase at any time after the thirtieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-four)….
is to prevent persons who obtained knowledge from the Gracious Speech of the intention to promote this legislation from purchasing thereafter requisitioned premises with the object of availing themselves of some of the provisions of the Bill. The case might occur where a person, before 30th November, though he had not completed the purchase of such a property, might have entered into a binding contract to do so. It would clearly be unfair that he should be excluded, for that technical reason, from any benefit that would be available under this Clause. So I suggest that the time should apply to the making of the contract, and not to the completion of the purchase.

Mr. Hay: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris) rose—

Mr. Lindgren: Are we not going to have the view of the Government on this Amendment?

Mr. Hay: I think you had collected the voices, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Sandys: This seems to me to be such a reasonable Amendment, and so clearly put, that I thought it was not necessary for me to add anything. It obviously carries out the intention of the Clause as previously drafted, which was that people who bought property with the knowledge that a Bill was on its way should not benefit under these provisions, but that people who had entered into a binding commitment should be treated in the same way as though they had completed the purchase before the date mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: I would agree, provided that nobody knew what was going to be in the Queen's Speech. It is going a little far, however, to suggest that nobody had knowledge that this Bill was coming forward. There was pressure from property owners' associations, there were discussions with them, and everybody knew that this Bill was coming along. To suggest that a person who started in anticipation of what was going to happen, knowing very well that the Government, to save their face, would have to pay their debt to the speculative purchaser, should now benefit, is, I think, carrying things rather far. I would advise my hon. Friends not to agree to this extension, and, if the Government insist on accepting it, then I would advise them to divide against it.

Mr. H. Butler: I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against this Amendment. We are satisfied that many owners of requisitioned properties, knowing the intention of this Government, and that eventually they would have to pay their pals who contribute to party funds, knew that this Bill was coming along. We have evidence from the local authorities of the increase in the number of people purchasing requisitioned properties. We did endeavour to make this particular date conform to the date of requisitioning, but that was rejected. Obviously, I cannot now discuss that.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has some peculiar ideas of Government and Ministerial responsibility, and he is agile in devising ways and means for the Minister to do a little more than he has done for the landlords. Whilst this Amendment appears innocuous, and not particularly important, it is an extension to cover those people who, as soon as this proposal was mooted, and after representations had been made by the Property Owners' Protection Association, entered into negotiations, through estate agents and people of that character, for the purpose of purchasing requisitioned properties and who bought at prices which took account of the fact that the places were occupied.
This Amendment not only extends the date of November, 1954, but it includes anyone who started negotiations or had a contract to purchase at a certain time.

Mr. Powell: There is no mention of negotiations in the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I have not a legal mind—

Mr. Lindgren: It is a suspicious one where the landlords are concerned.

Mr. Butler: —but it looks at the facts of the situation and does not indulge in the niceties out of which certain people manage to make a reasonable living. I face the facts as they are, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not deny that if there were no added advantage to the landlord in the Amendment, he would not have bothered to put it down.
Of course the hon. Gentleman may have the idea that the landlord is a respectable member of the community and that, therefore, he is entitled to make all the intelligent observations he can on behalf of the landlord. Indeed, he may take the view that he has considerable responsibility for that section of the community. I take the view that there is a responsibility to all sections of the community, and I regret that after a certain date has been inserted in the Bill, there is an attempt to make the date even earlier-or later as the case may be-in an attempt to give this benefit to those who entered into a contract, well knowing that these proposals were coming forward.

Mr. Sparks: I believe the Minister admitted in the Standing Committee that there had been a certain amount of business taking place in the transfer of these premises even before the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: If the right hon. Gentleman indicates that that was not the case, I must accept that, but I was under that impression when we discussed the matter in Committee. The fact remains that for many months before the Gracious Speech, going back almost 12 months before, hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite had been pressing the Government, particularly the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, to bring requisitioning to an end.
We had more than one debate in the House on the derequisitioning issue within 12 months of the Gracious Speech Therefore, any intelligent person interested in trying to cash in on this matter could quite well have gathered, from the speeches made and the replies given, that the Government were about to do something in this connection, and could also have come to the conclusion, very reasonably, that the Government would include something in the Gracious Speech to bring requisitioning to an end.
Therefore, the Amendment is wrong, if there were any such persons, as I am sure there were, seeking to take advantage of a Bill in course of preparation. If there is any advantage to be gained by the Bill, that advantage should go to the person who owned the requisitioned premises up to the date of the Gracious Speech. It is morally wrong for somebody to take advantage of another person, through information which he may have gained that something would happen at the date of the Gracious Speech, by entering into a contract to buy a requisitioned house from an owner, who might be hard up or who wanted to dispose of it for some other reason.
That house would be purchased, not for vacant possession value, but for occupation value, which is much lower, and under the terms of the Bill the purchaser would be entitled to vacant pos session. That would be a good speculation and, unfortunately, a number of people are looking for that sort of


thing. I am sure that quite a few of them have acquired requisitioned premises on the strength of the profit that will accrue to them as a result of this Bill, which will give them vacant possession value as against the occupation value at which they had acquired it.
Therefore this Amendment should not be accepted, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will leave the Clause as

it is because, by doing so, he would not be lending himself to a form of racket which, without doubt, has been going on to some extent. By resisting the Amendment he would be doing the right and fair thing.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 180.

NOES


Adams, Richard
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hargreaves, A.
Paton, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Beswick, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Clunie, J.
Jones, James (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P. H.
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collins, V. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kinley, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lawson, C. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Thornton, E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Deer, C.
McInnes, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, T. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
West, D. G


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Stanley (Wedneshury)
Messer, Sir F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, C. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H..B. W.
Williams, David (heath)


Forman, J. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Glanville, James
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H.
Willis, E. G.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Yates, V. F.


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles
Mr.Pearson and Mr.J.T.Price.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, after " licensee " to insert
 and persons residing with him.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, I hope we may discuss with this Amendment the following one to line 12—to leave out " that person " and insert:
 the person for whom the dwelling is required as aforesaid and persons residing or proposing to reside with him.
Both deal with the same principle. They define a little more clearly the respon-

sibilities in regard to the licensee and those persons residing with the licensee. During the Committee stage, the Minister indicated that he would be inclined to accept such an Amendment on Report.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has said, this is an agreed Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 12, leave out " that person " and insert:
 the person for whom the dwelling is required as aforesaid and persons residing or proposing to reside with him."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) In considering for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection whether other accommodation is available for the licensee of a dwelling, it shall be assumed that no preference would be given to him in respect of accommodation provided by the local authority under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, over other persons qualified, in accordance with the practice of the authority, to obtain accommodation so provided.
I understand that the Minister is willing to accept the Amendment in this form. The only point that I should like to make is that, although it is a good Amendment, which now lays it down that when applications for possession are made to the court, the court shall not assume, if an order is granted, that the licensee will be rehoused by the local authority to the detriment of other people on the housing lists who are in greater need, it does not necessarily follow that no orders for possession will be made against the licensee.
Therefore, to that extent, while it is a partial protection of the local authority housing list, it is not wholly a protection, especially where, despite this rule, the court might otherwise decide to give possession to the owner. In that case, the licensee would have to obtain accommodation, and, if unable to do so, the local authority would then be under a moral obligation to help him to obtain accommodation. As far as it goes, it is a worthy Amendment which is now proposed, and to that extent I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is willing to accept it.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Butler: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where the owner of a requisitioned dwelling has obtained an order for possession under this section and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the owner to pay to the former licensee such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for

damage or loss sustained by him as the result of the order.
This Amendment introduces, I think for the first time, a specific provision that might do something for the poor licensee. We have been discussing what is to be done for the owners, and in this case we are trying to get some protection for the licensee. As one who has heard representations from owners who have applied for possession of their requisitioned properties, I can assure the House that many and varied are the reasons which are stated.

8.0 p.m.

It has sometimes been stated that it was essential on medical and other grounds that the owner should have possession of the property and the local authority committee, consisting of reasonable men and women, has come to the conclusion that it was necessary that that should be done and has released the property. After the property has been released, we have seen, much to our disgust, estate agents' boards advertising the property for sale with vacant possession. I am not suggesting that magistrates or judges would be swayed as laymen might be, but it seems to me that if a licensee has been forced to leave the property and go elsewhere, he should be recompensed if he has been turned out as a result of misrepresentation by the owner.

I would remind the House that we are here dealing with people who would not have been in these properties if they had not suffered considerable hardships in many ways already. If they have to be moved, it may be that the local authority will not be able to house them. They may go into furnished accommodation where they have to pay £2 10s. or £3 10s. a week, such as in the East End of London, in properties which were at one time requisitioned and of which possession has been obtained by people who have turned them into furnished flats. They may thus have to pay increased rents. Even if the local authority rehouses them, there is the responsibility and cost of removal. Being what they are, women going into accommodation of a different size probably require to have their curtains and other furnishings altered, and, therefore, another expense falls upon the person who is displaced. The licensee may, of his own volition, find accommodation in an area a con-


siderable distance from his work, and he will then have to pay increased fares.

I am aware that if an applicant commits perjury in the courts he can be proceeded against, but the poor licensee who has suffered as a consequence of the applicant's action has no redress at all. I hope the Minister, who has been waving a pink paper all day—there used to be a paper belonging to Robert Sievier, called the " Pink 'un "—will realise that the House is anxious that a licensee should not be further penalised by misrepresentation on the part of anyone. I commend the Amendment to the House, and hope that the Minister will do something about it.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: I gave an assurance during the Committee stage that I should be happy to recommend acceptance of an Amendment on these lines, and I do so now.

Mr. Butler: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO REQUIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO RE- LEASE OR PURCHASE IN CASE OF HARDSHIP.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out from " may " to " requiring " in line 24, and insert:
 after consultation with the local authority give directions.
The Amendment arises because during the Committee stage the Minister said that he would be prepared to make a concession. It deletes:
…give directions to the local authority…
and inserts:
…after consultation with the local authority gives directions.
In view of the Minister's previous indication, and in the interests of brevity, I move the Amendment in this manner.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, after " directions "to insert" either."
This Amendment, and the next Amendment, in page 6, line 26, go together. The purpose is to give the local authority the option to decide whether to lease or to purchase a house in this case. As the Clause stands, the local authority has no option to do so; the Minister has to say whether the local authority is to lease or purchase the property. It was felt in Committee that it would be a good thing for the local authority to be the one which determined what should be done. I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 26, leave out " as the case may be " and insert " at the option of the local authority."—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no directions shall be given under this subsection, unless the Minister has afforded to any licensee of the house or of any part of the house an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose and unless the Minister is satisfied that such hardship as aforesaid to the owner would be greater than any hardship which by the giving of such directions would be caused to any such licensee and to any persons residing with him.
This is an Amendment intended to remedy defects in a Clause to which we take the very strongest objection. The Clause as it stands, allowing for the Amendments which have just been accepted, provides, first of all, that the owner of a requisitioned house may make representations to the Minister; next, that the Minister shall consult the local authority; and then, if the Minister is satisfied that the owner will suffer severe hardship, unless the owner is enabled either to obtain vacant possession or to dispose of his vacant possession interest, the Minister may, in effect, turn the licensee out of the house and have the premises released to the owner.
There are one or two remarkable features about the Clause. The House will remember a previous Clause dealing with questions of hardship, questions which were to be taken to the county courts. In this case the Minister proposes, by administrative action, to deal


with individual cases in the area of a local authority, and simply on hearing representations from one side. The Clause really merits considerable examination. It had some of that examination in Committee. The Minister then told us that, save in some exceptional cases—he did not convey in the least what the exceptional cases were; all he conveyed to me was that they were very few and far between—what it was really intended to provide for was severe financial hardship. My heart always bleeds for the limited company which is getting into the red and has to turn the licensee of a house into the street for that and no other reason.
Also, to have the licensee turned out by Ministerial action without even hearing what he has to say about it and without any consideration whatever of the licensee's position in the matter, is a piece of injustice which I should think was unparalleled in anything that even the Tory Party had ever put before the House. A short time ago I described it as an iniquitous piece of bureaucratic oppression, and so it is.
It is iniquitous, because, like other parts of the Bill, it prefers, this time very clearly and without any bones about it —the Minister made it perfectly clear by his statement to which I have referred—the financial interests of the owner to any hardship that may be caused to the licensee. That seems to me to be wholly iniquitous. Next, it is iniquitous in that it substitutes for the ordinary legal procedure of this country a purely bureaucratic business—representations made to the Minister, consultation between Whitehall and the local authority, and then the ejection of the licensee.
I remember right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite making the dickens of a fuss—if that is a Parliamentary expression—about very much less than this when we were in office. I am bound to say that, considering their professions about freedom, considering their supposed devotion to the principles of British justice, considering that they have from time to time made some claim or other that they have behaved fairly, I absolutely fail to understand how they managed to put this into a Bill. It is not only procedure, it is not only the Minister interfering in the individual case, but one conies yet again to the position of the

licensee. What are we to be told about it? The Minister in Committee refused a provision that the licensee should be heard. Are we to be told that the licensee is to be heard, or that the licensee is not to be heard? I should very much like to know the answer.
It is obvious that if the licensee is to be heard on every occasion there can be no better illustration of the extraordinary inconvenience and unfairness of bringing this sort of matter before the Minister at all. Unless it is to be said that such cases will be so rare that there need be no Clause about it—and that I rule out—if the licensee is to be heard by the Ministry, the miserable licensees will be pressing up Whitehall to supplicate the great powers that be that they are not turned out of their homes by administrative action. Yet I would rather that happen than that the licensee was never heard, and it looks at present as though the licensee is never to be heard.
Does justice mean anything in this country? Is there no form of fairness between the human claims of the licensee, between his family and home rights, and the severe financial hardship that may be suffered by the owner of a requisitioned house? Is the latter all that matters to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, so singular in its solitude. so powerful in its appeal, that that and that alone is to enable a man to be turned out? Do hon. Members opposite really make this remarkable admission about their unfailing preference, their constant adhesion, their absolute subjection to the rights of property whenever those rights come into conflict with human interests? If they do, they could not have given better proof than this Clause, and they could not give better proof of it now than by refusing this Amendment, although all it does is to ask that the licensee be heard and that when a decision is made, the hardship of the licensee be weighed against the hardship of the owner.

8.15 p.m.

If the hardship proves to be as large or larger, then the poor man can stay where he is. If the Government refuse that, let them look at what they are doing. They will be saying in effect that severe financial hardship to the owner—there may be more hardship and, therefore, it must be severe hardship to the


licensee, it will not be financial hardship—will be all that will be needed.

The rules that apply in the county court as between a landlord and a tenant, the rules that apply to rent-controlled houses all over this country, rules that have been worked for years past and which make the court weigh up the two hardships—that of the landlord and that of the tenant—are not to apply when the Ministry comes to decide behind closed doors. The Ministry is to consider only the financial hardship to the landlord. The hardship to the licensee, though it be human hardship, though it be greater than the financial hardship to the landlord, is to weigh for nothing in this iniquitous Clause.

Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
I apologise to the House for not being here when my name was called to move the Amendment, but I was refreshing the inner man, which must be done even in the House of Commons. I support the Amendment, because it raises a topic which has already been the subject of discussion today—the hardship of the tenant. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that if the tenant is to suffer greater hardship—or even equal hardship—than the owner, then the tenant should be left where he is, if the local authority, because of the circumstances of its waiting list, is unable to put him into a municipal house. That, of course, is an easy proposition. It is not a question of the owner wanting the house for his own occupation. That is covered by an earlier Clause.
This Clause permits the Minister to give instructions to the housing authority to hand the house back to the owner if, on representations by the owner, the Minister is satisfied that the owner is suffering hardship—not that he is suffering more hardship than the tenant will suffer if he is moved, but merely that he is suffering hardship. That is completely contrary to the ideas of human justice which we have in this country. Therefore, there ought to be a provision in the Bill for the tenant to be heard and heard not in a county court, which is a place in which most people hate to be—even when they are in the right, they find it difficult to talk and put their

own point of view—but at a simple hearing by a civil servant appointed by the Minister. With his experience of local government, the Minister should find no difficulty in finding the right type of man to hear the appeal and on the facts to determine whether there is greater hardship on the tenant if he is turned out than there would be on the landlord if he was not given back his house.
This is not a point which we have invented. It is one which has already been noticed by a lot of people in London and one about which the Press has been talking. I want briefly to quote the newspaper which circulates in the Minister's own borough, the " Clapham Observer " for 11th February. Discussing the Bill, among other things it says:
 There is a prospect in Wandsworth, where it will be an almost impossible task to achieve complete derequisitioning within five years, and, at the same time, avoid causing hardship.
That is the point with which we are concerned in the Amendment. We think that it would be fair and decent if the Minister would agree to accept our Clause and give the tenant an opportunity to show that he will suffer hardship and to give the borough council an opportunity to help the man, if necessary, in his appeal. At least the Minister should give the tenant a chance so that justice can be seen to be done to him and so that we do not have, as I am afraid that we have all through the Bill, the rights of property as such set against the human dignity of the tenant.

Mr. A. Evans: If the Minister purports to hold the scales fairly, he should accept the intention of the Amendment. The Clause is completely one-sided. I understand that it is inserted to meet the position where an owner would suffer financial hardship if his house were not released to him. Because the case is one of financial hardship, it seems that the Minister thinks there is only one side to the argument—that of the owner—and that the question of there being an argument for the licensee does not arise.
The Clause is surprising in its one-sidedness when one recalls the provisions of Clause 5. There the case of need is based upon whether or not the owner needs the dwelling for the occupation of himself and his spouse, and so on. We know that the case of need may be


genuine if an owner requires a house for his own occupation. There both sides are heard.
When we come to Clause 6, then, because the interest is a financial one, the Minister decides that the licensee should not be heard. Apparently the Minister is satisfied that, if the claim for the release of a house is based solely upon financial need, no question should arise of the possible greater hardship that the licensee might suffer. I am surprised that the Minister left the Clause as drafted and that he did not, on his own initiative, seek to amend it so that balance would be kept, the licensee heard and justice done between the two parties. Instead he has left the decision of financial hardship solely to the arbitrament of his own officials. That is carrying prejudice too far.
It is seldom that a Minister, in deciding between conflicting claims, considers one partly only and neglects to consider the other. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider my argument, and will agree that in the cause of elementary justice he should at least hear what the conditions of the licensee are, and consider the balance of hardship between the two parties. It is not too late for him to rectify this obvious injustice and arrange for suitable words to be inserted in the Bill in another place to make it clear that both sides should be heard and justice maintained.

Mr. Sandys: There are really two points in the Amendment. The first half provides that the Minister shall consult the licensee before giving a direction to the local authority under Clause 6, and the second half provides that the Minister shall consider the relative hardship of the owner and the licensee. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that when the Amendment was moved he was absent. I think he said that he was refreshing the inner man. I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for the way in which, with no warning at all, he sprang into the breach and moved the Amendment. It is not the first time that I have seen him perform that exercise.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said he hoped that I would accept the intention of the Amendment. As I understand it, the intent is twofold. The first and main intent

is to avoid causing hardship to the licensee. The secondary intent, which is the way of achieving that, is to ensure that both sides are heard. I fully accept the intent of the Amendment. It goes without saying that, in taking decisions of this nature, one must take into consideration the interests of both sides—in this case there are really three sides, because there is the local authority as well.
As I have said, not once but in almost every speech that I have made on the Bill, we wish to ensure, above all, that no hardship shall be caused to the licensee. The Amendment would have something to be said for it if certain other Amendments had not already been accepted. As sometimes happens when Amendments are tabled, it is overlooked that other Amendments affect the content of the proposal. Some Amendments which have been accepted do that. I submit that the purpose which the Amendment is intended to serve has already been fully met, perhaps in a more satisfactory way, by two earlier Amendments.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the Minister indicate what they are?

Mr. Sandys: I was just about to do so. I thought it was essential that I should.
The first Amendment to which I refer provides that the Minister is now to be required to consult the local authorities before he gives a direction under Clause 6. From all that has been said during these debates, I think it is generally accepted that the local authority, which is nearer to the licensee than the Government are, is probably the best judge of the interests of the licensee. In any case the local authority will have to take his position into account in deciding what line to take when it is consulted by the Minister.
I cannot conceive that the local authority, when consulted by the Minister, as is now provided for by the Amendment to which I am referring, would not in the first place take into account the position of the licensee. It would not be very satisfactory for the Minister to consult the local authority and the licensee at the same time. The local authority is statutorily responsible for housing accommodation in its area. I do not think the Minister should either duplicate or bypass the local authority, and try to form


an opinion separate from that which the local authority will, no doubt, express to him about the position of the licensee concerned.
The second Amendment which has been adopted, and which to my mind is far more important in relation to the Amendment now before us, is that which gives the local authority the option to decide whether to release or purchase the house. That Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key). The local authority is given the option, when it receives this direction from the Minister, to decide whether to release the house or to purchase it. As the Bill is now amended, the Minister has no power to direct the local authority to release the house in cases of hardship under Clause 6. What he has is the power to direct them, at their choice, either to release or to purchase.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the local authority will have the power to decide whether hardship is going to be caused by release. I think the local authority is in a better position to judge than the Minister, and, if it comes to the conclusion that hardship will be caused, then it is perfectly free not to release the house but to purchase it. Of course, if it purchases the house and does not release it, clearly no hardship can be caused to the licensee.
Therefore, I submit that, in view of the earlier Amendments which have been adopted at the suggestion of the party opposite, the intention of the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Islington, South-West has put it, is already fully met by what has been done by earlier Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: It was to preclude reliance on that sort of point that expressly said when moving this Amendment that we had had regard to the other Amendments on the Order Paper. I am afraid that my hon. Friends and I cannot accept that answer as satisfactory. Let me tell the Minister very shortly why.
First of all, if the local authority is to be taken as the person representing the licensee, as the person with direct knowledge of what is going on, as the person with housing responsibility, I should at once agree with the Minister, but my answer would be that we would not be objecting to this Clause in the same way

if this kind of matter were left to the local authority. It is an entirely different thing when it is put into the hands of Whitehall and when there is mentioned in this Clause one hardship and one hardship only as the ground for release, and that is the severe financial hardship, so we are told, to the owner of the property.

Mr. Sandys: I want to find out what is intended by this Amendment. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman in what circumstances hardship could be caused to the licensee, assuming that the local authority is going to purchase and not release the house where hardship arises?

Mr. Mitchison: I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that hardship could and might well be caused unless there were a compulsory purchase. I agree that it certainly would, and that is not provided for in the Clause as it stands.
Now take the case of compulsory purchase. The owner makes representations to the Minister that he is suffering severe financial hardship, and the Minister says to the local authority, " You must do one thing or the other." The local authority, conscious, as the Minister has told us, of its responsibility towards the licensee, is faced with having to buy a property, which it possibly may not want to buy at all, in order to make good the severe financial hardship to the landlord.
Surely that is all wrong. Surely we are putting the local authority in a false position about compulsory purchase. Surely, as the dispute is primarily one between the purse of the landlord and the home of the licensee, we ought never to try to provide for having it heard in Whitehall on representations by one side only and merely after consultation with the local authority, which itself may be in difficulties if it is driven to compulsory purchase in order to avoid hardship.

Mr. Sandys: I want to get this point clear, because the hon. and learned Gentleman is now shifting his ground a little. He no longer maintains that the hardship which might arise would be caused to the licensee and he recognises that the local authority can purchase the house. It is not compulsory purchase—the local authority has to make an offer to the owner—but it comes to the same thing. We have been assuming that the


local authority will know what the licensee's position is, and everybody has agreed that it is in the best position to know.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Why should it have to purchase the house?

Mr. Sandys: Under the Clause it would be open to the local authority to make an offer to purchase, if it came to the conclusion that the licensee would otherwise suffer hardship.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Where is that provided? It is important.

Mr. Sandys: I am interrupting the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I cannot accept interruptions while I am interrupting. I ask you to forgive me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having been so long, but I wanted to clarify the point.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that the hardship is not for the licensee but for the local authority, which might have to buy a house which is expensive or which it otherwise would not wish to buy. If, as a result of State action, severe financial hardship is caused to an individual, it seems right in the last resort that the house should be purchased from him so that he is relieved of it. The burden is spread and the purchase of the house does not cause hardship to an individual.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not abating one jot or tittle of what I said about hardship to the licensee. I agree that this is slightly complicated. If the owner makes a case on severe hardship, the Minister goes to the local authority and says, in plain English, " Something or other has got to be done. You have either to turn the man out or buy the house."
This is the local authority which is supposed to represent the licensee's interest to the Minister. Two things seem quite inevitable—first, that the local authority cannot in those circumstances properly represent the licensee's interests; and secondly, that its temptation all the time will be, if it is at any rate faintly inconvenient to have compulsory purchase, to have the man out in order not to have compulsory purchase. I agree that the phrase " compulsory purchase" is sloppy, but we know what is meant.
In those circumstances it seems to me purely a question of machinery. The substance is that the licensee is likely—I do not say certain—to suffer hardship, that that hardship is not to be taken into account, that the only hardship which is to be taken into account, on the language of the Clause, is the hardship to the owner of the property, and that the means for judging all this are the wholly tyrannous combination—and I use the word deliberately—of the Minister, who cannot know the individual facts and who ought not to try to act as a court of justice, and the local authority, which is supposed to represent the licensee when in fact he is quite likely to have an opposite interest. That I thought a thoroughly bad piece of machinery which will cause injustice. I hope we shall divide against the refusal of the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman: There is another point to which I would draw the attention of the Minister. He said that as the Clause is now amended it means that the local authority has the choice either of releasing or purchasing the house. I suggest that is not by any means clear from the wording of the Clause. It says:
…the Minister may give directions to the local authority requiring them. within such period as may be specified in the directions, to release the house to the owner or, as the case may be, to make to the owner an offer to purchase the house in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.
It is not at all clear whether the choice is given to the local authority or remains in the hands of the Minister. It is ambiguous.
I should have thought that the interpretation a court would be likely to place on those words would be that the choice remained with the Minister. If we were to give it to the local authority it would say in specific words, " to release the house to the owner, or, if they choose, to make the owner an offer, to purchase the house." I should like the Minister to clear up that point. I suggest that he could clear up any doubt on the issue by accepting the Amendment and thereby putting it in black and white that the Minister has to consider the hardship of the two parties. I suggest to the Minister that when a tribunal is considering the relative hardship of two parties it is far


the best that the same person who considers the hardship of the owner should also consider the hardship of the tenant instead of having it at second-hand from the local authority.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman). He has been reading from the Bill, but the Amendment which clarifies the position is that which was moved by the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) to page 6, line 26, to leave out " as the case may be " and to insert " at the option of the local authority." That makes it perfectly clear that the local authority has the option to decide whether it will release or make an offer to purchase.

Mr. Silverman: It still remains a question of forcing the local authority to purchase a house at what might be a completely outrageous price. A local authority may decline to do that, and, if so, it would inflict hardship on the tenant.

Mr. H. Butler: I rather fancy that the Minister is ignoring the fact that local authorities will have a dual responsibility. They will attempt to alleviate any hardship which might arise to the tenant, but it appears to be assumed that local authorities are going to purchase every property where there are difficulties. There are properties which are requisitioned and which no decent local authority would purchase as local

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Balfour, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Benson, G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Beswick, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bing, C. H. C.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W.


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hargreaves, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brrnwch)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hobson, C. R.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J. H.


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hubbard, T. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Finch, H. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Champion, A.
Foot, M. M.
Hughes, Emrys (s. Ayrshire)


Clunie, J.
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Collick, P. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Collins, V. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Janner, B.

authority property. The Minister must not assume that every property which at present is requisitioned is property which a local authority, as a good housing authority, would consider should be in its possession. It is very important that a local authority considering a particular property, having had it surveyed and having all the information at its disposal, should be able to say, " In the interests of our ratepayers, we will not take to ourselves this terrible junk."

What is the position of the licensee? Apparently, he has no protection. The Minister says that the local authority can purchase the property, but it does not want to purchase something that it would probably want to demolish in any case. The argument that the licensee is protected because the local authority will purchase cannot apply; and this pressure on local authorities should not be exerted on the ground that the licensee will suffer hardship.

The Minister's conception of the local authorities' position appears to be that for the purpose of pursuing the object of the Bill, he will make local authorities purchase properties that they do not require. If that is the argument with which we are faced, it is completely untenable and should not be supported.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 203.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moyle, A.
Steele, T.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Nally, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Oswald, T.
Thornton, E.


Jones, James (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.
Timmons, J.


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Kenyon, C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell,Charles
Viant, S. P.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Kinley, J.
Parker, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Lawson, G. M.
Paton, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, D.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lewis, Arthur
Probert, A. R.
West, D. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wheeldon, W, E.


Logan, D. G.
Pryde, D. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McInnes, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Willey, F. T.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ross, William
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Manuel, A. C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mason, Roy
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Willis, E. G.


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottoen, Richard (Brightside)


Messer, Sir F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Yates, V. F.


Moody, A. S.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Pearson and


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Morrison,Rt Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank




Sparks, J. A.

NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Alport, C. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Iremonger, T. L.


Armstrong, C. W.
Drewe, Sir C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jennings, Sir Roland


Assheton, Rt. Hn.R.(Blackburn,W.)
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Barlow, Sir John
Fell, A.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Kaberry, D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fisher, Nigel
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Kerr, H. W.


Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lambton, Viscount


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Black, C. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Braithwate, Sir Gurney
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Longden, Gilbert


Bullard, D. G.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hay, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Burden, F. F. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Sir David
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Carr, Robert
Heath, Edward
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgs, J. M. C.
McKibbin, A. J.


Channon, H.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph(East Grinstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Holland-Martin, C. J.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Manningham.Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Marples, A. E.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Maude, Angus


Deedas, W. F.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Maydon Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Medlicott, Sir Frank
Ridsdale, J. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Neave, Airey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wade, D. W.


Oakshott, H. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)


Odey, G. W.
Scott, Sir Donald
Wall, Major Patrick


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wellwood, W.


Page, R. G.
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Perkins, Sir Robert
Spens, nt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wills, G.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Powell, J. Enoch
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Profumo, J. D.
Studholme, H. G.
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)



Renton, D. L. M.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Clause 7.—(RELEASE FOR IMPROVEMENT WORKS.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 20, leave out " said " and insert " lastmentioned."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 16.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 94 OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1950.)

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, at the end, to insert:
" or such greater sum as may from time to time be authorised by an order in the form of a statutory instrument: and provided also that the Secretary of State may make such orders as aforesaid, so however that no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."
The purpose of the Amendment, curiously enough, is to deal, not with something of special interest to Scotland, but a matter of House of Commons procedure. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and a former Home Secretary were among members of a Select Committee of the House which was appointed to deal with delegated legislation. In that Committee we had to consider the uses of delegated legislation and how the time of the House could be saved by eliminating unnecessary Bills and discussions.
The Select Committee made a very serious Report to the House, of which we thought the Government would at least take notice. It seems surprising that in Clause 16 the Government have practically gone out of their way to thumb their noses at the recommendations of

the Select Committee. One of the purposes of the recommendations of the Select Committee, in analysing the various matters that come before the House, was to show that mere routine matters which did not require discussion of principle were far better dealt with by Statutory Instrument.
The principle of giving grants to the Scottish Special Housing Association has long since been settled. That is not in dispute. The Committee of Public Accounts, in its wisdom, suggested that there should be some method by which the House could control the amounts of the grants. Nobody would question that, but when the Government proceeded to put this recommendation into force they chose a most complicated way, which would most certainly upset the business of the House. They rejected the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation that these matters should be done in a businesslike way to save discussion in the House.
All that would be required in the way of a further step to raise the amount would be a simple Statutory Instrument to alter the figure of £75 million to £80 million or £100 million, as the House required. That Statutory Instrument would be under the control of the House. In Standing Committee on the Bill which we are now discussing, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to be under the impression that the Statutory Instrument would be subject to a Prayer, but he will find from the Amendment that we are suggesting an affirmative Resolution, which undergoes exactly


the same procedure as a Bill except that it has one stage in the House instead of three.
If the amount of this money should require to be increased in the future, as it most likely will be, the Government have chosen, as a method of authorising that, the bringing of a Bill before the House where it will have a Second Reading, pass to the Committee stage, perhaps be dim-cussed in Committee, and then come back to the House, and have at least a Third Reading. But all that is necessary is that, if it approved the alteration of the amount, the House should approve a statutory affirmative Resolution.
We can understand that perhaps this was not thought of when the present Bill was being drafted, but surely when the matter was brought to the attention of the Government on Second Reading they should have gone into it seriously. They should not have held to the text of the Bill without going into the common sense of the matter from the point of view of carrying on the business of the House.
The Joint Under-Secretary made no reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) when they put these points to him in the Standing Committee. I hope that he has thought about the matter again, and that, as has been happening recently in connection with Scottish legislation, he will act in a reasonable way and accept reasonable suggestions, even when they come from this side of the House. This is something of which the whole House approves because it is an effort to eliminate unnecessary discussion and the unnecessary complication of Bills.
9.0 p.m.
There is one other point, from the Scottish point of view with which this Amendment deals, and that concerns the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has the duty of using alternative methods to supplement the output of the building trade in Scotland. It is necessary that that organisation should be able to get ahead speedily. If, for instance, there were congestion of legislation such as there has been in the past, a Bill is much more difficult to find time for in the Government's programme than is an affirmative Resolution. That is an additional argument why the Government should seriously consider the suggestions that I

have put forward. They are so reasonable that I do not need to labour them further.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be prepared to agree to the acceptance of the Amendment, and to its embodiment in the Bill. It involves no sacrifice of principle but the adoption of a sensible course recommended by a Committee of the House. He ought to show his approval of the work of the Select Committee by agreeing to accept what is a sensible suggestion.

Mr. James McInnes: This Clause has absolutely no relation to requisitioned houses which we have been discussing all day. Nor, unlike nine-tenths of the Bill, has it no relation to Scotland. It concerns a purely Scottish domestic matter. It relates to the question of the advances made from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Special Housing Association, a provision which for some unknown reason has been secreted away at the end of a purely English Measure. I hope that in future, after what has been said about that during the Committee and other stages of the Bill, that there will be no repetition on the part of the Scottish Office of an action of this kind.
The issue that is involved here is one to which my right hon. Friend has referred, as to whether it would be a better method to deal with this matter by Act of Parliament or by way of Statutory Instrument. The Joint Under-Secretary, in dealing with the Amendment previously, indicated that if we were to adopt the principle of a Statutory Instrument it would involve a Prayer, and that Members generally resented Prayers, probably because they come on so late in the evening, which does not give an opportunity for a full and frank discussion. As I understand it, the Amendment would not involve a Prayer but would involve an affirmative Resolution. The Government can bring such a matter forward at any time, even at 3.30 p.m. if they so desire.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also indicated, in speaking against the Amendment, that it has been the custom to deal with financial matters by means of Acts of Parliament and not by means of Statutory Instruments. I could refer the right hon. Gentleman to numerous occasions on which the Ministry of Food


and the Ministry of Agriculture have dealt with financial questions by means of a Statutory Instrument.
It seems to us that the method proposed in the Amendment is the more effective and more tidy method of dealing with the matter. It will give the maximum Parliamentary control as well as Departmental control, and that is what the Public Accounts Committee sought when it made the recommendation. By the adoption of the Amendment, ample and adequate opportunity to debate the matter will also be given. In view of what my right hon. Friend has indicated, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will now advance some other and better reason than we have yet heard for not accepting the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks talked about this being a mere routine matter, but I cannot accept that the granting by this House of large sums of money is purely a routine matter. It is something which I believe should be considered seriously, and every opportunity should be given to this House to debate it. The right hon. Gentleman has himself indicated that greater opportunities are afforded when the House proceeds by Bill rather than merely by order.

Mr. Woodburn: May I clear up that point? Is there any greater opportunity of debating a Bill on Second Reading than there is of debating an affirmative order?

Commander Galbraith: There are all the other stages, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, which give further opportunities to the House to consider and to debate the matter. Obviously, therefore, there are greater opportunities for debate and consideration when legislation is adopted. The right hon. Gentleman must have been with very persuasive people when he was serving on the Select Committee, because I have been looking back over the records and I find that Governments of which he was either a Member or which he supported passed nine Acts of a similar nature to this Bill and in each case they insisted that, where there was to be an increase in the amount of money granted, it should be granted by Act of Parliament and not by order.

There is this further point, that where the expenditure of large sums of fresh money is concerned, the Government as a whole and not an individual Minister ought to put the matter forward. In other words, however appropriate orders may be for the administrative functions of a Minister within his own sphere, they are not, in my opinion, appropriate in the financial context.
I have advanced reasons why we should not accept this Amendment, and I have to inform the House that I am unable to accept it on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: There cannot be any hon. Member in any part of the House who has been convinced by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has told us again that it is necessary for the House to deal with these matters by means of a Parliamentary Bill. I put to him in Committee, and I put to him again, that the Government have given to the farming industry about £230 million in the past year. We did not have a Parliamentary Bill this last year to vote any penny of that sum. Some £50 million of that money, which is given in calf subsidies, fertiliser subsidies, ploughing-up grants and so on—all things provided for in the first place by an Act of Parliament—is continued year by year by Statutory Instrument. That is far in excess of the £10 million per annum needed to finance the Scottish Special Housing Association. That Association has been functioning for many years without Parliament having any control over the amount of money advanced.
Up to the end of March last year, a sum of £51 million had been advanced to the Scottish Special Housing Association. The amount of money which it has had advanced to it has been increasing at the rate of about £9 million a year, and, by the end of this financial year, which I believe is tomorrow, it will have had advanced to it about £59 or £60 million. If it goes on increasing its demands upon the Treasury at the present rate; in other words, if it goes on building houses at the rate at which it has been building them up to now—although the building contractors in Scotland have been doing their best to convince the Government of the need to stop the Special Housing Association building houses, so that the profits might go to the private contractors—one year from now, the Association will have


had advanced to it at least £69 million or perhaps £70 million.
But, long before that time is reached, the Scottish Special Housing Association will require to acquire additional land and to make advance preparations for future building. It will have committed itself to the building of houses for which this House has not given any financial authority, and that would seem to us to be wrong.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was saying that, before that time is reached and before it can be given additional financial responsibility beyond the £75 million which has been written into this Clause, the Government will require to bring forward another Parliamentary Bill, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained to us that, although the Public Accounts Committee recommended to us in 1952–53 that it was desirable that there should be more Parliamentary control over the amounts of money issued to the Scottish Special Housing Association, the Government could not find an appropriate legislative vehicle to give effect to that recommendation until now. If they could not between 1952 and 1955 find a convenient vehicle to provide for this effective Parliamentary control, and if we have to wait as long again, of course, by that time the Scottish Special Housing Association will be out of business.
It is no defence for the Government to say that these matters should be put into a Parliamentary Bill so that they may be properly discussed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said, this ceiling figure of £75 million was written into a Bill dealing in the main with requisitioned houses, which was sent upstairs to a Standing Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary did not even have one single Scottish Conservative Member on that Standing Committee; yet he says that all these things ought to receive detailed discussion by Members of Parliament.
The Bill went to a Committee on which no single Scottish Government supporter was sitting, though there were, I think fortunately—although it may be presumptuous to say so—two Scottish Opposition hon. Members on that Committee. We had a little discussion, and one hopelessly inadequate speech from the right hon.

and gallant Gentleman. We could have had far more discussion on this matter if it were dealt with in the form of a Statutory Instrument than if it was dealt with in the way in which it has been dealt with on this occasion.
If it was right to shove this provision into the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill this time, and if in another 12 months or less, it is necessary to get fresh House of Commons authority for an advance to the Scottish Special Housing Association, goodness knows into which Bill we shall put it. We have some reason to believe that we may have a Slaughterhouses Bill next year. [Interruption.]An hon. Friend of mine says " Write it into the Slaughterhouses Bill." Someone else suggests that we might get it in the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, the so-called " Horror Comics Bill," which we hope will have completed its stages before an increased sum is necessary, so that there will not be an amending Bill next year.
In any case, there is no likelihood—perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could tell us—of our having a new Scottish Housing Bill. It is quite clear that the last Bill which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would want to see containing these provisions is another Scottish Housing Bill, because we had one last year. However, that was not a convenient legislative vehicle in which to deal with the matter because, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now told us, this has been the first convenient opportunity. That means that the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill of last year was not a convenient legislative vehicle in which to deal with the matter.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was a Scottish Bill.

Mr. Fraser: It was a Bill which attracted the attention of Scottish Members of Parliament. We gave detailed consideration to it, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had a very difficult and hard time in Committee. He lost all the arguments but he won all the votes. If he counted only the Scottish votes in the Committee he lost the vote, because the Opposition won by two to one. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this is not a purely Scottish matter but a House of Commons matter.


Looking at it from another point of view, the Government won the vote in total by 20 to 19, and they were saved by the votes of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, to which the Bill does not apply anyway.
It is clear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself thought during the Second Reading on 15th February not only that this was a matter which should be dealt with by Statutory Instrument but that it would be dealt with by Statutory Instrument. I referred in Committee to his speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can look it up, but surely he knows what he said. He said he thought it was a matter which should be dealt with by a Statutory Instrument. However, he is one of those Ministers who think that if the Opposition put an Amendment on the Order Paper it is the duty of the Government to oppose the Opposition and that they must never take the advice of the Opposition.
I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would take a leaf out of the book of his hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary who has just been handling the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, who told us only last night, as did the Secretary of State himself, that the Bill had been much improved because the Government had accepted Amendments moved by the Opposition. I understand from my hon. Friends from south of the border, who know the Measure well, that this is a bad Bill in any case. However, this Clause would most definitely be improved if our Amendment were accepted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that that is so, but he has been given authority by the Secretary of State to handle this matter and he has made up his mind that, because the Amendment had been moved by the Opposition, there is something evil in it and it ought to be resisted. Yet it is all so straightforward and plain.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the suggestion is a worthwhile one. Every hon. Member who has listened to the discussion knows that the suggestion is a sensible one. It is in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation; it gives effect to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee; it is in accordance with precedent; and

it is in accord with common sense. I implore the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for once to do the right thing, and take the advice of the Opposition.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like to add one or two words, because we discussed the matter in the Public Accounts Committee for a considerable time. That Committee makes many recommendations, but it never suggested that in exercising control over the sum voted to the Scottish Special Housing Association the Government should have to go to the trouble of introducing a Bill every time some money had to be found for that purpose. What it did say was that it was rather an odd arrangement that money should be spent without either the Treasury or the House exercising any control over the amount spent in any one year.
The Public Accounts Committee asked only that before this happened the House should have some say in the matter. That was all it asked, and that was all it asked from the Treasury itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot produce one iota of evidence to say that the Public Accounts Committee demanded that an Act of Parliament should be passed to provide money for housing purposes on behalf of the Scottish Special Housing Association. He must not seek to foist responsibility for the Government's action on to the Public Accounts Committee. I think that that clears up that point.
The second point, which has been admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and was also put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) during the Committee stage, was this: we do not believe that there is a single Member on either side of the House who believes that this is the right way to deal with the matter which is peculiar to Scotland, which affects only an association which is in Scotland and in no other part of the country, who believes that that type of thing should be included at the tail end of a Bill which is applicable to England in the main and is certainly not applicable to Ireland. This is a strange way to enact Scottish legislation.
I do not think on either of those counts that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any argument at all. I appeal to him to reconsider the matter even at


this late stage. It does not mean that he will be regarded as weak if he agrees to reconsider the issue. It is a purely Scottish issue, and I hope that even at this late stage he will say that he will look at it again and agree that there may be something in the Amendment. It is not too late for him to do so. and I am certain that if he did he would increase his stature in the eyes of Members on both sides of the House:

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is prepared to consider it? It is a reasonable Amendment. We do not necessarily want to force a Division; we would rather he said he would reconsider the matter.

Commander Galbraith: I am not in a position to reconsider the matter. It has

Division No. 58]
AYES
[9.24 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Awbery, S. S.
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, Sir F.


Benson, G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, C. R.


Beswick, F.
Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.


Bing, G. H. C,
Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, C. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. O.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.


Collick, P. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paton, J.


Collins, V. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Probert, A. R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, James (Wrexham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Kinley, J.
Short, E. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Finch, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, M. M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

been very seriously considered. In any case, I will correct the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who said that this was purely a Scottish matter. Grants of funds are not purely Scottish matters. The granting of funds in any connection is a matter for the House of Commons, and the two hon.. Gentlemen ought to know that. I will not reconsider the matter. It has already been considered, and I have given the Government's answer to the House. I would further say that it is not proper that a change such as is proposed should be made on Amendments of this nature.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 201.

Thornton, E.
West, D. G.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Timmons, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, 8.)


Turner-Samuels, M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, E. G.


Ungood-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wallace, H. W.
Willey, Frederick
Yates, V. F.


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, David (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen


Weitzman, D.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Hay, John
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Heath, Edward
Odey, G. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Higgs, J. M. C.
O'Neill, Hen. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Perkins, Sir Robert


Bell, Ronald (Bunks, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Holt, A. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Black, C. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Profumo, J. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'h'gh,W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hylton-Foster. Sir H. B. H.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robertson, Sir David


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullard, D. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Campbell, Sir David
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Carr, Robert
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Sir Donald


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesb'rgh, W.)


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lloyd-George, Mal. Rt. Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Studholme, H. G.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Donner, Sir P. W.
McCallum, Major D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Drewe, Sir C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Duthie, W. S.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fell, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Wade, D. W.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marples, A. E.
Wellwood, W.


Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wills, G.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Woollam, John Victor


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Mr. Kaberry and



Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Mr. Edward Wakefield.

Clause 18.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, to leave out from the beginning to " the " and insert:
 a certificate of the Minister that any land being land which at.

Mr. Speaker: I think this and the next two Amendments might conveniently be taken together.

Mr. Higgs: Subsection (2) of this Clause provides that the decision on a certain question of fact shall be the decision of the Minister, but it does not provide how anybody in any proceedings in court is to prove that the Minister has so decided. We thought it proper, and my right hon. Friend indicated in Committee that he agreed with us, that we should provide that when the Minister has made his decision a certificate from the Minister should be sufficient proof of his decision. These three Amendments are intended to give effect to that intention.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 42, after " is " insert " or is not."

In line 43, leave out from " be " to end of line 44 and insert:
 conclusive evidence of the matter so certified."—[Mr. Higgs]

9.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I think it will meet the wishes of the House if I move this Motion fairly briefly. I may add that I do so with some personal diffidence. I regret that during the second half of the Committee stage I was unavoidably absent, and another reason for my diffidence is my knowledge, which by now will be shared by all hon. Members who have taken part in our discussions, that the brunt of the work has been borne by my right hon. Friend. He has done all the hard work.
On Second Reading I said that my right hon. Friend had spared no pains to achieve clarity in the draft. I hope that

I may now say, with the agreement of hon. Members who have taken part in the discussions, that he has spared no pains to meet as reasonably as possible points raised from all quarters.
The Bill sets out to solve an exceedingly difficult problem which was becoming harder rather than easier with the passage of time. It would not have reached this stage in this form without a large measure of co-operation and assistance which we have had from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and, indeed, hon. Members in all parts of the House. For that my right hon. Friend is exceedingly grateful and he wishes most sincerely to acknowledge the contributions which have been made.
The Bill has mainly concerned a small number of local authorities and naturally most of the contributions have come from hon. Members concerned with those areas. We have had the benefit of the considerable knowledge of detail which they have been able to bring to bear.

Mr. Shurmer: We have not had the extension by five years, have we?

Mr. Deedes: In conclusion, in the long run we shall depend, as we already depend in so much, upon the co-operation of the local authorities for the smooth running of the machinery. We rely on that, and I am sure we can do so with every confidence.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I intend to follow the Parliamentary Secretary's example of brevity, as it is desirable that we should vote as early as possible. I, too, take the opportunity of saying how glad we are to see the Parliamentary Secretary back, and that he has recovered from his slight illness.
It is usual, on Third Reading, to compliment the Minister on his handling of the Bill, and we do that. The Minister was most courteous in Committee, and we are grateful to him for it. It is an easier way of getting a Bill through than some other ways adopted by some Ministers. But we cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill itself. It is a better Bill than when it was presented to the House, and that is because the Minister, in Committee, promised some concessions which he has honoured on Report, and these have mitigated the worst hardships imposed by the Bill.
But it remains a property-owner's Bill, a Bill for the benefits of the property owner and not for the benefit of the tenant. These properties with which we are dealing were empty when they were requisitioned, and they were requisitioned to rehouse people from London, Birmingham and Manchester, for example, who had lost their homes in the blitz. Now, ten years after the end of the war, we are dealing with those families who lost their homes during the war. During the war, the Tory Party is quite ruthless in handling the landlords and their property, but when the war is over they forget all about that and go back to the old style of giving all the advantages they can to the property owner at the expense of the tenant.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Nonsense.

Mr. Lindgren: I would point out that Government supporters have not been very enthusiastic about the Bill. The Government's votes and majorities today have been the lowest they have had, and the reason that their votes and majorities have fallen is that a number of hon. Members do not want to be challenged on their votes in the constituencies.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it because the hon. Member and members of his party want to celebrate their new-found unity?

Mr. Lindgren: We are glad that that has upset the noble Lord. I would warn him—perhaps I am as guilty as he—that we are anxious to get the Third Reading of this Bill soon, and, if we cross one another in this way, perhaps we shall not do so.
We are still convinced that if the Amendments the Minister has accepted are operated in the spirit in which they were moved and in the spirit in which I believe the Minister accepted them, these properties cannot be handed over by the local authorities—in London in particular —by 1960. That has been one of our main contentions in dealing with the Bill in Committee and on Report.
The Minister has made an offer, on conditions, that he would extend that period. My Parliamentary experience is not a very long one, but in that experience that offer was certainly an unprecedented sort of bargaining from Dispatch Box to

Dispatch Box. My first reaction to that offer was that it is the responsibility of the Government, in handling legislation, to accept or reject Amendments in the light of the circumstances in which they feel they ought to accept or reject them. I am certain that at some later stage there will need to be an amendment of this Bill to deal with the problem which will face many London boroughs in regard to derequisitioning.
We shall not accept the offer of the Minister. If, in another place, he likes to introduce an Amendment which will extend the time, we think that would be an improvement to the Bill. It would certainly help the London boroughs in handling their problems. But we are not prepared to make that bargain to the extent of refraining from voting against the Third Reading of the Bill, which we think is a thoroughly bad Bill in its conception, because we feel that that conception is not in the interests of the country as a whole, but in the interests of property owners, who are restricted for the time being because their properties are requisitioned.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: I shall be brief, because I realise that the House wishes to dispose of this matter as quickly as possible, but I do not think we should allow this stage to go by without having a few words from the Minister.
I wish that the Bill really contained a solution of the problem of requisitioned property. I think that everyone who has anything to do with the problem—town clerks, housing managers, local councillors and others—would be very thankful if the Bill really contained a solution of the problem. We all wish to dispose of the problem as quickly as possible.
This Bill attempts to deal with the hard core of the matter. Half the problem has been solved over recent years as about 61,000 premises have been de-requisitioned. There remain 62,000 still under requisition. That is the hard core and the most difficult part of the problem. That hard core the Minister proposes to hand over to the local authorities to deal with. He is sweeping away the really difficult part of this problem and putting it in the care of the local authorities.
Because the Minister is doing that I think it incumbent upon him to offer


local authorities every possible assistance, particularly in relation to the operation of Clause 4. I believe the Minister would agree that Clause 4 is the pivotal Clause of the Bill. Upon the success of that Clause, upon the general application of the provisions of that Clause, will depend the success or the failure of the entire Bill. I hope the Minister will make every effort to assist local authorities to operate the provisions of Clause 4 as widely as possible. I hope that he will not be too hesitant on the grounds of expense in releasing various categories of properties under that Clause.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think first of the more expensive properties which might be dealt with under Clause 4 but will endeavour to help to apply the Clause in the hard core areas. He can do much to help local authorities in those older urban areas to apply the Clause widely and successfully, and I hope that he will use all his administrative machine to assist those local authorities, whom he has burdened with this problem.
I am afraid that although Clause 4, with the passing of requisitioned properties back to their owners with some security for the tenants, may operate fairly well in some areas, it will operate the least well in the hard core areas. As I sec it, those areas will by 1960 have to revert to the final solution, which is open to them in Clause 11, of buying or leasing the premises which then remain requisitioned. If that stage is reached and the authorities in the hard core areas are faced with that problem. the Minister, if still in office, will be faced with the problem all over again.
In my own borough, which is typical of many, 23,000 families are living in 13,000 premises. [HON. MEMBERS:" What'? "] Twenty-three thousand families—I beg pardon. One thousand three hundred premises contain 2,300 families. If hon. Members knock off the noughts, they will get it right. I estimate that in 1960 at least half of those properties will remain requisitioned and still in the possession of the local authorities, who will be faced with their final solution of buying or leasing those properties.
When that comes about, local authorities will be faced with the question

of whether to buy sub-standard property. I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government that local authorities should become the owners of semi-slum property, but I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the purchase of substandard property is a step that a local authority would be very loath to undertake. It is a shame upon a local authority's civil pride that it must contemplate the purchase of this substandard property.
I am told by those in the area who should know that out of the 1,300 premises, not more than 100 are worth buying. The remainder are the type of property that no business man would look at. I am assured that to put them into a fit condition would cost more than to build new flats. If the Minister is still on the Government Front Bench in 1960 —which is very doubtful—he will then be faced with this problem all over again. I repeat my plea to the right hon. Gentleman to do everything he can from his own Department to ensure that local authorities in the hard core areas are able to operate Clause 4 as widely as possible.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I commiserate with the Minister at this stage, because no one rises to support the Bill from the benches behind him—low majorities, low morale and only chit-chat from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). There may indeed be some unnamed cause casting a shadow over coming events, but to pursue that further would, I suspect, not be in order now.
This Bill began as a very bad Bill indeed. We took it upstairs, and one or two Amendments were made in Standing Committee, rendering it a very bad Bill. We then brought it back to the Chamber again and the right hon. Gentleman introduced Amendments, and, by a very courteous act which I appreciate, encouraged my hon. Friends to put down certain Amendments, redrafted, to give effect to undertakings which he had given upstairs. So a very bad Bill was improved until it was quite a bad Bill, and quite a bad Bill it still is, and that is why we must record a vote against it tonight, so that it shall be on the record that we do not accept the principal features of the Bill.
They have been constantly criticised, and I do not intend to repeat the criticisms, but merely to refer to them very briefly. We have criticised the Bill because for the authorities in London—in inner London and outer London—in Birmingham and one or two other important areas, a period of five years is impossibly short to complete the work of derequisitioning without causing very great hardship to large numbers of humble people who have incurred no responsibility for their present condition, it being largely due to the hazards of war, whereby it was these people, for the most part, who were beneath the German bombs.
That is our first and principal objection to the Bill, and on that ground alone we must divide the House against it, but in addition to that we take objection to the Bill because at more than one point it leans heavily in favour of the landlord and against the tenant—the licensee. These are the two principal reasons—others have been given—why we must vote against the Bill.
We are anxious to come to a decision quickly, and so I shall not further repeat the arguments which have been made previously. I finally ask the Minister whether, in the light of the discussions that have taken place today, he will contemplate the possibility that when the Bill reaches another place there may be made, on his initiative, certain further Amendments, to some of which, I think, he is intellectually converted, and which, I hope, he will think fit to have made in the Bill.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to say that I am most grateful, in spite of some of the things

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[9.54 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cole, Norman


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)


Armstrong, C. W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Barlow, Sir John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullard, D. G.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Deedes, W. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cary, Sir Robert
Donner, Sir P. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Duthie, W. S.


Black, C. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has just said, which, I think, he no doubt felt bound to say—

Mr. Dalton: With good reason.

Mr. Sandys: —felt bound to say—

Mr. Dalton: I did. I felt morally bound to say them.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is altogether convinced by some of the arguments which he and his hon. Friends have advanced during the debates on the Bill.
I think there was misunderstanding at the beginning. When the Bill was first introduced, many hon. Members opposite genuinely thought that large numbers of families were to be thrown out on to the streets as a result of the Bill. I think they realise now that that is not going to be the case.
I am grateful for the co-operation from all parts of the House. The Bill has, I readily recognise, certainly been improved as a result of the Amendments put forward from all quarters, and I think that some of the criticisms which might justifiably have been made in the first place are no longer relevant, now that Amendments have been made. The object of the Bill is to return requisitioned houses to their owners as quickly as possible, consistent with the avoidance of hardship to the present occupiers—

Mr. Shurmer: Why return them? Not all the owners even want them.

Mr. Sandys: —and I am confident that the Bill will achieve that object.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Noes 182.

Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Finlay, Craeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Glover, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Graham, Sir Fergus
McCallum, Major D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gresham Cooke, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Scott, Sir Donald


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, William


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbegh, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)


Heath, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.
Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Holt, A. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Heave, Airey
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholson, Geoffrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wade, D. W.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)


Iremonger, T. L.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Wellwood, W.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. 0.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wills, G.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Woolam, John Victor


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A, H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.



Profumo, J. D.




Raikes, Sir Victor

NOES


Adams, Richard
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Benson, G.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Donnelly, D. L.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blackburn, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hobson, C. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holman, P.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hoy, J. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burke, W. A.
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Janner, B.


Clunie, J.
Glanville, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Collick, P. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Cove, W. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, James (Wrexham)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Steele, T.


Keenan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Kenyon, C.
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S. T.


King, Dr. H. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kinley, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lawson, G. M.
Pannell, Charles
Thornton, E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Timmons, J.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parker, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Paton, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lewis, Arthur
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Lindgren, G. S.
Porter, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, T. E.


Logan, D. G.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McInnes, J.
Probert, A. R.
Weitzman, D.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pryde, D. J.
West, D. G.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersf'd, E.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Frederick


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Williams, David (heath)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Messer, Sir F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Willis E. C.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Winterbottom Richard (Brightside)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Moyle, A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nally, W,
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PROBATION SERVICE, WEST SUFFOLK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.4 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I am raising tonight certain aspects of the Home Office proposal to amalgamate the probation service in East and West Suffolk. Although I have the advantage of living in East Suffolk and, therefore, have some local knowledge of the excellent probation service, and one of the principal officers is actually based in my home town of Halesworth, I want to make quite clear at the outset that it is on behalf of the people concerned in West Suffolk that I speak.
Anyone interested in these matters knows that the probation service of the Home Office is one of the most important and useful departments of that Department of State. It is a humane and merciful service in that it seeks to rehabilitate those who offend against the law because it helps them to lead their normal lives under the supervision of a probation

officer rather than undergo a prison sentence.
For a good many years now the probation services in this country have been run on a county, county borough and municipal basis, and it is right that they should be run in that way, because the very essence of the job is close co-operation between the probation officers, the magistrates, the probation committees, the police, the local education authority, and all other organisations dealing with local welfare. There are also the "Mrs. Sensibles" of the Women's Voluntary Service, children's officers, doctors, clergymen, youth leaders, and many other good citizens, who play their part in this splendid service.
The success or failure of all this depends, not only on the wisdom and experience of the probation officers themselves, but on the public spirit of many other people in the community. I raise this matter tonight because any administrative action which is likely to impair the essentially local and voluntary character of these services should be considered very carefully indeed.
In the view of many people concerned with the probation services in West Suffolk, the decision of the Home Office to amalgamate the East and West Suffolk probation service is likely to damage the


service. Also my right hon. Friend's disregard of local opinion has caused a good deal of real indignation and feeling and will cause more.
East Suffolk has about three times the population of West Suffolk, and there are nine probation officers. In West Suffolk there are three. They are all full-time officers. The West Suffolk probation officers are based on Bury St. Edmunds, which is the natural geographical centre of the county, and we who are concerned with this service in West Suffolk have a particular and special pride in the extremely good record of our small probation service. It has had a higher percentage of successful cases than the average percentage for the whole of Great Britain and Wales. An even better test of its efficiency is the fact that its record of failures in dealing with probation cases is less than half that of the average for the rest of the country.
The fact that these probation officers are based in Bury St. Edmunds, with the local education authority, with all the other local organisations and welfare committees, and with the probation committee. is one of the major factors in the quite remarkable efficiency of this service. The principal reason why every magistrates' bench in Suffolk—

Mr. J. H. Hare: West Suffolk.

Mr. Aitken: West Suffolk—is strongly opposed to the probation committee being put under the control of an administrative officer 30 miles away in another county is that it simply means more red tape, more forms, more files, and a good deal of waste of time in travelling between the two places.
It is quite true that under the proposal the three probation officers in West Suffolk would still remain in West Suffolk, but they would be under a principal probation officer in Ipswich. I think it has been made quite clear to my right hon. Friend that the proposal has been mooted by the Home Office several times before, and each time it has been turned down.
The experience that we have had in West Suffolk, and, I think it is fair to say also in East Suffolk, has proved that they do co-operate in many ways and in a most friendly and helpful way in many things. Experience has shown that when we get a joint committee dealing

with individuals rather than things, however, it never really works. The experiment was tried some time ago of having a common medical officer. They also tried the experiment of having a common mental health committee, but it just did not work, and the experiment had to be abandoned.
Anybody who knows the geography and road system of West Suffolk will agree that the most convenient place for the probation committee to meet is certainly Bury St. Edmunds. In the view of the justices of the peace and the probation committee, having headquarters centred in Ipswich simply means a waste of time, not only for the probation officers but the committee. The majority of the members of the probation committee will be from East Suffolk, but the difficulties of communication will simply mean that the attendance at meetings of the joint probation committee will not, in the nature of things, be so consistent or nearly so effective.
There are many other objections which I shall not raise because I think that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary already knows them all. Let us examine the reasons which the Home Office gave for what we consider was really a quite arbitrary action. The Home Office say that West Suffolk probation officers will have the guidance of a principal officer and derive a helpful stimulus resulting from a larger team. This service in West Suffolk is extremely efficient, and it does not need an office wallah. A team of 12 is really no better than a team of three, but that is a matter of opinion, and there is a good deal of helpful and friendly association which Roes on, not only between East and West Suffolk, but with Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, and the surrounding areas.
The Home Office also gave as a reason for this proposal more economic use of the staff in the adjacent parts of the two counties. I think my hon. Friend is satisfied, from the figures which the Minister has. that there is no financial advantage in this, so that the economic aspect is out. According to Home Office standards, each of the probation officers in West Suffolk has a case load which is not excessive, nor is it under what it should be. It therefore would not be reasonable to expect them to take over


any more cases from East Suffolk, nor would it be reasonable to expect East Suffolk to put more cases on to them.
The other point which the Home Office made was that it would be easier to provide reliefs for the West Suffolk woman officer and other officers when they go on sick or annual leave, but this question has never caused any trouble in West Suffolk before, because they have always arranged these matters with the adjacent areas of the two counties, and can always get a relief. There is, therefore, no difficulty about that.
To most of us, the reasons for the Home Office attitude are pretty nebulous. We have learned to expect a good deal firmer, clearer and more coherent reasons for action, when my right hon. Friend desires to take any, than we are being given this time. There is quite a flavour of Whitehall about this, and we have a pretty good idea that there is something in this suspicion. I know that my right hon. Friend realises that the position of East Suffolk is really very different from that of West Suffolk, because it is a much larger area. They have a much larger staff and there is, therefore, a good argument for a senior administrative officer to look after them. The probation officers are dispersed more than in West Suffolk, and the argument for an administrative head is a fair one, for in the past they have had a part-time administrative officer, and obviously they have every right to feel that they might well have a full-time administrative officer now. But that does not apply to West Suffolk, and those of us who have looked into this matter very carefully feel that it will not improve the efficiency of the service there.
I suspect that the Home Secretary now realises that the case against the order is a pretty formidable one. Surely the magistrates of West Suffolk, the probation committee, the police, the education department and the many other people concerned in these matters. most of whom are deeply opposed to the order, know much more about what is right or wrong in West Suffolk than the gentlemen or ladies in Whitehall. I wonder whether my right hon. and gallant Friend is really prepared quite arbitrarily to over-rule the responsible and expert opinion of those who have had to work the service in West Suffolk. Is this a deliberate policy

of centralisation? Is there to be more bureaucracy, not less, in the probation service under his rule at the Home Office? Why has he never had a local public inquiry into the matter? This is a purely direct, arbitrary, administrative action on the part of the Home Office.
As far as I have been able to find out, there are seven other counties or parts of counties and 10 county boroughs in England and Wales which have their own independent probation services, and they have smaller populations than West Suffolk. So far as I know, no proposal has yet been made to make a combination order for any of them. What is my right hon. and gallant Friend going to do about this? Is he going to insist, irrespective of size, efficiency, convenience and their own wishes, that these people should have the " guidance " of an administrative officer? If so, he will run into a lot of trouble, because these things carry further than people suspect and have far wider implication than the people in Whitehall or whoever they are who make the plans and orders seem to realise.
It is a very bad order. It is bad for the Home Office. This dictatorial stuff is not good for any Government office. It is bad for West Suffolk, and I think it is bad for good citizenship. These things go very deep in these sort of communities. This is human stuff. People are very proud and very keen on something which they have made work efficiently and well. I hope my hon. Friend will make representations to the Home Secretary to drop the whole business.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I should very much like to congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) upon his gallant rearguard action tonight. However, I cannot say that I have been very much impressed by the validity of his arguments, eloquent though they were.
I should have thought that the matter resolved itself into this. There is a growing desire for prestige on the part of many local authorities. My experience is that when a local authority loses a single function it feels that its prestige is lowered and that it cannot keep up its status. It is like keeping up with the Jones's.

Mr. Aitken: Suppose they are well ahead of the Jones's?

Mr. Evans: We cannot admit that. We know that the figures which the hon. Gentleman has adduced are very encouraging, and we all admire them, but the problems which have to be faced in West Suffolk arc rather different from those in the more closely populated areas of East Suffolk. We have to remember that the office at Bury St. Edmunds will be maintained.

Mr. Aitken: And interfered with.

Mr. Evans: There is no intention whatever to alter the numerical standing of the office. All that is asked is that these two authorities, which are contiguous and have very similar interests, particularly in the border area, should come together. I should have thought that, after the long and persistent campaign that we have had about doing away with as many administrative centres as possible and saving expense, and all the other elements which result from centralisation, hon. Members opposite would have welcomed this move in connection with one service in which we can obtain complete co-ordination and co-operation between the two halves of this lovely county.
There is a good deal in the belief that the people in East Suffolk feel that the service would be strengthened by amalgamation. I admit that there are the local prestige points and that one feels hurt if one is neglected. I do not want to press this on the Minister too much. It is obviously something for him to decide, and I think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) has made very heavy weather of what might not be a very serious matter.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I want to intervene for a moment. I am in a unique position, because my constituency is partly in East Suffolk and partly in West Suffolk. I want to assure the House that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) said is absolutely correct. There is very strong feeling in West Suffolk about the order, but I must in fairness to my constituents in East Suffolk make it clear that what the hon.

Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said is also true—that the magistrates and probation officers in East Suffolk feel that the order will be for the general benefit of the entire county. I hope that what my hon. Friend said about " a little view " is not taken into consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary. The people in West Suffolk very genuinely and honestly feel that they are giving a good service, and I think it would be quite wrong to suppose that they are trying to retain their present position merely because they want to retain a bit of authority. They wish to retain it only because they genuinely believe that they are giving a better service. That is all I want to say.

10.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): Members of the probation service will certainly be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) for the kind things he has said about the service, and I certainly do not complain of his raising this matter this evening. He is no doubt prompted by the natural and, if I may say so, proper pride on the part of his constituents in an important local service. I think that we should be slow to make changes such as the one proposed. I certainly think that when we do so it ought not to be on an abstract principle, but on the merits of the case, and I should like to say something about those later.
I appreciate that there are very strong feelings in Suffolk on this subject, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) has indicated, not all Suffolk feeling is against the making of the order and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison), who is sitting beside me, has asked me to say that he takes an opposite view from that of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. In this case there are two main reasons for the proposed combination. The first is that West Suffolk is really too small an area. At present, three probation officers are employed in the area and they are just about fully employed. But if there were any variation, by either an increase or decrease in the number of probationers with which they have to deal, there would be difficulties.
Obviously, the smaller the number of officers in an area the sharper will be the impact of any change in the number of probationers. There has recently been a fairly substantial decrease in the number, and I think that there is reason to hope that that decrease will continue. If that should be so, it will create difficulties when one is dealing with so small a unit as this. Again, if there is any sickness or absence, when there are so few probation officers, those who are left will have a much greater burden thrown on them. Certainly, we do not desire an excessively large area, but three probation officers is really too small a unit.

Mr. Aitken: Why?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What I have said is generally true. I will give some reasons for it. My hon. Friend said that there were other small units. The answer is that we cannot deal with all these matters at once. This is a convenient time to deal with this case, but, wherever we find only three probation officers prima faciethat number is too few.
There is another objection to having so small an area. We can have only one woman officer if we have only three officers altogether, or, conversely, if we have two women officers we can have only one man. Here we have only one woman. In this type of work the sex of the officer is obviously of the highest importance. If the one woman were away sick for any time, or away on leave, her work would have to be done by a man, and that would not be a satisfactory state of affairs.
Again, it is most important that the probation officers should work closely together and discuss their cases. If there is a very small number there is obviously a risk of purely personal difficulties in that connection. I do not say that it exists in this instance, but there is a risk which is likely to lead to difficulties sooner or later. Also, there is a very great benefit to be derived from an interchange of experience and views among a larger number than merely three.
The second main positive reason for wishing to make the change is that it is desirable to have a principal probation officer available to supervise the probation work in Suffolk. The advantage of having such an officer has really been

recognised by West Suffolk, because it proposed in November, 1953, that one of the three probation officers should be upgraded. In fact that proposal had to be refused because we could not upgrade one officer to be senior over only two others; but West Suffolk recognised by its suggestion that there is an advantage in having one senior officer.
My hon. Friend suggested that a principal probation officer stationed at Ipswich would be too far away, but I really do not think that that is so. He would be immediately available on the telephone from any part of the county. I believe that the most remote part of the county from Ipswich is a matter of only 45 miles away, and the greater part of the area is considerably nearer. I do not think that that is a substantial objection. The real reason for wanting to have a principal probation officer is the value of having a leader in this work. I think that all those engaged in it will recognise this and know that it is something worth having.
My hon. Friend has given reasons against the proposed combination. He argued that the work of the West Suffolk officers has, on the whole, been more successful than the average. He drew attention to the annual return of probation committees to the Home Office, and of course it shows that 10 per cent. more probationers successfully completed their period of probation in that area than in the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend pointed out, quite rightly, that that means that there were fewer failures—fewer had to be brought back to court—but he himself said quite explicitly that this is a comparison as between West Suffolk and the country as a whole. That is not a fair comparison, because there is a considerable discrepancy between the urban and the rural areas. if we compare West Suffolk with other rural areas then it has no advantage. I do not say that it is any worse, but it has no advantage. Therefore, the comparison which he made is really not a proper one. Moreover, the figures in any particular area are affected by the fact that local benches may tend to vary in their use of the different powers available to them.
It has been suggested that the West Suffolk probation officers' personal contacts both with magistrates and with those


with whom they have to deal may be impaired. That is based on a misconception. The officers serving West Suffolk will continue to be stationed at Bury St. Edmund's, or indeed locally elsewhere in West Suffolk, and there will be no change whatsoever brought about, as a result of this combination, in the relationship between the probation officers and the magistrates. There is nothing which can effect that change. The probation committee's headquarters, it is true, will probably be at Ipswich, but the probation committee's function is purely administrative, and it will not interfere with the actual work being done by the officers.
In the third place, it is said that the West Suffolk magistrates will be in a minority on the probation committee. I have been assured that the East Suffolk magistrates are most anxious to meet the wishes and the convenience of the West Suffolk magistrates, and I am certain that that fact will be recognised by the magistrates in West Suffolk. The intention, indeed, is that the probation committee itself shall hold some meetings at Bury St. Edmund's. I think the ordinary practice is to have three or four meetings a year, and some of those are to be held at Bury St. Edmund's.
Of course, the real answer to this point is that there are in fact no conflicting in-

terests in this connection, as between West Suffolk and East Suffolk, and there is no reason whatever why the two sets of magistrates should not work perfectly well together, as I am sure they will. As has been pointed out, no financial considerations, no additional expenditure, are involved. There is certainly no question of local interests or wishes being overridden.

Mr. Aitken: How can my hon. Friend possibly say that the local wishes are not being over-ridden when they are being over-ridden very definitely? The local wishes are the wishes of everybody in West Suffolk concerned with this proposal.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend is only looking at the wishes of those who agree with him, but there are local wishes in both senses.

Mr. Aitken: Not in West Suffolk.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can assure my hon. Friend that in no way are they being over-ridden.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.